Depiction of smoking on a book cover - Whether it constitutes a violation of Section 5, Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Violation of Tobacco Act Due to Misuse. rt cautions against misuse of Public Interest Litigation for personal motives; directs petitioner to approach Steering Committee
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Rajasimhan against the Union of India and others, which sought to prohibit the sale and circulation of a book depicting smoking on its cover. The PIL claimed that the cover image violated Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, which prohibits tobacco advertisements.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, emphasized the importance of filing PILs with due diligence and responsibility. The court remarked that the petitioner, before invoking the writ jurisdiction, must exhaust statutory remedies provided under the Act.
The judgment highlighted that the Steering Committee, constituted under the Act, is the competent authority to examine alleged violations. The court criticized the petitioner for approaching the High Court without first consulting the Steering Committee, which is empowered to act on complaints or suo motu.
The court noted that the PIL was filed without proper research, lacking factual verification, and overlooking the disclaimer on the book stating that the depiction was not intended to promote smoking. The petitioner was rebuked for not examining the book before filing the petition, and for failing to disclose essential facts in the pleadings.
Respondent No. 4, the publisher of the book, argued that the petitioner’s claims were unfounded, as the depiction was not an advertisement under the Act, and that the petitioner had not approached the competent authority for redressal before filing the PIL.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's observations on the misuse of PILs for publicity or personal motives, noting that such petitions should not be used for "suspicious products of mischief" or founded on personal vendetta.
Ultimately, the court held that the matter involved statutory interpretation and factual assessment, which should be decided by the expert body constituted under the Act. The PIL was dismissed with cautionary remarks about the misuse of PIL jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 - Section 5, Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
Rajasimhan v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2793526
