The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking to prohibit the display of ‘graphic or gross anti-tobacco health spots’ during films in cinemas, on television, and OTT platforms. The petitioner's plea was based on the alleged distasteful nature of these health spots.
The petitioner-in-person, Divyam Aggarwal, contended that the prevalence of distasteful, graphic anti-tobacco imagery in health spots during movie screenings and TV programs had led to the filing of the writ petition.
A single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad acknowledged the multifarious health risks associated with smoking tobacco, including lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary heart disease, and various other health issues. In response to these health concerns, the Government enacted the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 to regulate the tobacco industry, including warnings on tobacco product packaging and restrictions on their display in films and television.
The High Court emphasized that the purpose of displaying graphic anti-tobacco imagery in health spots was to create awareness among the public about the harmful effects of tobacco and tobacco products. The Court viewed these efforts as being in the public interest and meant to deter people from smoking.
The Court also expressed concern about the abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), noting that PILs intended to provide a voice to the voiceless were increasingly being used for private gain. It was highlighted that the present writ petition appeared to be backed by the tobacco industry lobby, aiming to obstruct the government's efforts to promote a tobacco-free state.
In its conclusion, the High Court stated that the objective of the writ petition was to prevent the government from achieving the noble goal of reducing tobacco addiction and ensuring public health.
The Court issued a stern warning against the filing of frivolous petitions in the future.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
