Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India
Using the powers conferred by India’s omnibus tobacco control law, the government introduced new graphic health warnings in October 2014 that, among other things, increased the graphic health warning size from 40 percent of one side to 85 percent of both sides of tobacco product packaging and amended the rotation scheme of the warnings. The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association, the Tobacco Institute of India, and other pro-tobacco entities challenged the validity of the 2014 pack warning rules in five cases in the Karnataka High Court – Bengaluru, and the court initially stayed the implementation of the warnings via interim orders. Following a petition by tobacco control advocates, the court lifted the stays, and a division bench of the court affirmed the decision on appeal. The association and others challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court. Paving the way for immediate implementation of the warnings, the Supreme Court, on May 4, 2016, directed that the matter be decided within six weeks in the Karnataka High Court by a bench constituted by the Karnataka Chief Justice and that any stays of the warnings in other high courts not be given effect until the conclusion of the matter. The Supreme Court identified pending pack warning challenges in courts throughout India (more than 27 in number) and transferred these cases to Karnataka. After months of hearings, a two judge bench of the Karnataka High Court struck down the 2014 rules. One judge found the rules illegal, holding that the Ministry of Health did not possess authority to act unilaterally. Both judges found the rules to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India, High Court of Karnataka (2017).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Regulations may infringe on intellectual property rights, which may be protected by international treaties. The industry may argue that bans on "deceptive" packaging that eliminate the use of colors, numbers or trademarks threaten intellectual property rights.
The legislative branch, through its tobacco control legislation, may have granted too much authority to the executive branch to implement measures administratively.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Regulatory measures consisting of political actions designed to punish the tobacco industry or tobacco users. The industry may argue such arbitrary and capricious regulations will fail to achieve the stated objective. They may also argue that the measures are too extreme, prohibitively expensive, and violate the principle of proportionality.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Thus, while considering the aforesaid three aspects, it is noted that they are not only unreasonable restrictions, but also dilute and water down the right to advertise, which is also a right to trade as envisaged under Article 19(1)(g), in the instant case. A restriction on right to trade must be reasonable and should balance with other nuances of right to trade. Hence, the right to advertise on the package, which is interpreted as right to trade in the instant case under proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of COTPA cannot be nullified by the Rules made there under. But in the instant case, the unreasonable restrictions pointed out above have curtailed the right to advertise on the tobacco packages, which is reserved under the statute. As a result, there is infraction of that right, which is, in the form of an exception to prohibition on advertisement of tobacco and its products. It is well settled that a right created by an exception clause under a statute must be given its full effect and not be permitted to be whittled down by Rules made under statute. In other words, the impugned Rules are contrary to COTPA, which is impermissible in law."
"It is held that the textual warnings cannot be accepted as true in the face of a serious debate over it, the world over. Then the pictorial images also would have to be held to be impermissible for the very same reason. This is because there is no universal acceptance of the theory that use or consumption of tobacco and its products causes cancer. This Court is not expected to and, would not venture to give its verdict on that aspect of the matter one way or the other. But when there is no unanimity on the statements contained in the textual warnings, rather when the same is a subject of serious debate the world over, the Amendment Rules, 2014 could not have incorporated the same without there being any rationale behind it. Further, as
already noted, there appears to be no real application of mind on the selection of contents of the warnings, which are graphic images seeking to exaggerate the ill-effects of tobacco and its products so as to co-relate them to the textual warnings. In fact, the warnings may not even serve the purpose for which they are meant as the consumers or potential consumers of tobacco and its products may refuse to believe in the contents of such textual warnings and consequently, the pictorial warnings also would not have any impact on anybody. As a result, the whole object and purpose of having such warnings would be lost."
"The aforesaid answers clearly establish that there was no scientific approach adopted while choosing 85% as the size of the warning. No material has been placed before this Court by the respondents to establish that if the size of the warning is 85%, it would have the effect of dissuading smokers or potential smokers from using/consuming tobacco products. Therefore, it becomes clear that neither was there any basis nor any application of mind to prescribe specified health warning to be 85% of the principal display area on both sides of the package. In the absence of there being any material, which has been considered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, I find prescription of 85% of the principal display area of the package containing the specified warning is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution apart from not being in consonance with the recommendation made by the Parliamentary Committee as well as the Expert Committee set up by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare..."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Using the powers conferred by India’s omnibus tobacco control law, the government introduced new graphic health warnings in October 2014 that, among other things, increased the graphic health warning size from 40 percent of one side to 85 percent of both sides of tobacco product packaging and amended the rotation scheme of the warnings. The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association, the Tobacco Institute of India, and other pro-tobacco entities challenged the validity of the 2014 pack warning rules in five cases in the Karnataka High Court – Bengaluru, and the court initially stayed the implementation of the warnings via interim orders. Following a petition by tobacco control advocates, the court lifted the stays, and a division bench of the court affirmed the decision on appeal. The association and others challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court. Paving the way for immediate implementation of the warnings, the Supreme Court, on May 4, 2016, directed that the matter be decided within six weeks in the Karnataka High Court by a bench constituted by the Karnataka Chief Justice and that any stays of the warnings in other high courts not be given effect until the conclusion of the matter. The Supreme Court identified pending pack warning challenges in courts throughout India (more than 27 in number) and transferred these cases to Karnataka. After months of hearings, a two judge bench of the Karnataka High Court struck down the 2014 rules. One judge found the rules illegal, holding that the Ministry of Health did not possess authority to act unilaterally. Both judges found the rules to be arbitrary and unreasonable.