Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner approached this Court for a writ/direction to the respondent for prohibiting the display of anti-tobacco health spots during films in cinemas, on TV and on OTT, which contained graphic or distasteful, gross images, Subramonium Prasad, J.*, held that the present petition was a gross abuse of the process of law and the aim of the present petition was actually to restrain the Government from achieving a noble objective of a tobacco free State and to ensure that people did not become tobacco addicts.
The Court noted that the Government of India after looking at the ill effects of cigarettes and other tobacco products, brought in the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (‘Act’) to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for the regulation of trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products. The Court further noted that the Act also provided statutory warning on the packets of cigarettes and other tobacco products and how the specified warning had to be made. The Act also provided that no individual or person or character in films or on Television shall display tobacco products or their use. However, it was provided that the rule would not apply to old Indian films and old television programmes, produced prior to coming of the Act or Rules, being screened in a cinema hall or theatre, or aired on television provided they carry a warning regarding the ill effects of tobacco and tobacco products.
The Court opined that with a view to deter people from smoking tobacco and tobacco products, the Government of India had brought in advertisements to educate people about the ill effects of tobacco and tobacco products. The Court further opined that the graphic description given in these Government issued advertisements which, according to the petitioner, were gross and graphic imagery, were in fact meant to be eye-openers for the people not to use tobacco and tobacco products and was, therefore, in public interest.
The Court also opined that it was the duty of the State to take steps to ensure that the health of the people was protected. Thus, the Court held that the present petition was a gross abuse of the process of law. The Court opined that “off late, this Court was seeing that Public Interest Litigation, which was actually a tool for providing voice to the voiceless, was being used to achieve private gains and the present petition was also one such petition which had been backed by the tobacco industry lobby to prevent the Government from creating awareness against tobacco, which was the sole cause responsible for a number of ailments among men and women”. The Court further opined that the aim of the present petition was actually to restrain the Government from achieving a noble objective of a tobacco free State and to ensure that people did not become tobacco addicts.
The Court held that the present petition deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs but looking at the petitioner, who was a young Advocate having a bright future ahead, this Court restrained itself from making any comments on the petitioner which might have a bearing on his future, however, this Court warned the petitioner to not to file such kind of frivolous petitions in future.
[Divyam Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6139, decided on 20-09-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Divyam Aggarwal, petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, ASG; Ajay Digpaul, CGSC; Amit Gupta, Swati Kwatra, Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Ghanshyam Jha, Ishita Pathak, Advocates
