Omkar Agency filed a writ challenging the Indian government and its ministries from enforcing the ban on gutkha or pan mashala containing tobacco. The writ asserts that the regulations regarding gutkha or pan mashala under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 are invalid because neither gutkha nor pan mashala are an article of food and the national Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA) should control tobacco regulation. Omkar, a business that stocked and sold gutkha prior to the regulations, seeks relief from the regulations while the litigation is ongoing. The court gives the government three options: 1) to allow Omkar to move their stock to a state which does not have the regulations, 2) to account for Omkar’s stock and seal it, or 3) to account for the stock and require a promise from Omkar not to sell their products during the case proceedings.
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.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
Omkar Agency filed a writ challenging the Indian government and its ministries from enforcing the ban on gutkha or pan mashala containing tobacco. The writ asserts that the regulations regarding gutkha or pan mashala under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 are invalid because neither gutkha nor pan mashala are an article of food and the national Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA) should control tobacco regulation. Omkar, a business that stocked and sold gutkha prior to the regulations, seeks relief from the regulations while the litigation is ongoing. The court gives the government three options: 1) to allow Omkar to move their stock to a state which does not have the regulations, 2) to account for Omkar’s stock and seal it, or 3) to account for the stock and require a promise from Omkar not to sell their products during the case proceedings.