9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The appeal involves challenging the constitutional validity of The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004 as amended by The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The main contention is that the Act is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and the Rules are ultra vires the provisions of the Act. Judgment Details: Challenge to Constitutional Validity: The appellants challenged the orders of the High Court, arguing that they are contrary to settled legal principles and detrimental to public health. They contended that the Act was enacted by Parliament based on previous court observations and the rules were framed to give effect to the Act's objectives. The High Court's stay on the rules was criticized as unjustified. Court's Observations: The Supreme Court held that while the constitutional validity of the Act and Rules was pending before the High Court, passing interim orders stultifying the statutory provisions was not justified. The Court emphasized that in matters challenging legislation and rules, courts should be cautious in granting interim relief unless the provisions are clearly unconstitutional. Public Health Concerns: The Court highlighted the adverse impact of tobacco consumption on public health, particularly on vulnerable sections of society. Statistics on deaths caused by tobacco-related diseases were presented to underscore the seriousness of the issue. Decision and Directions: The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside. The Court expressed reservations about the Union of India's handling of the case and emphasized the need for sincere representation of public interests in legal matters. The Central Government and State Governments were directed to diligently enforce the provisions of the Act and Rules. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's judgment focused on upholding legal principles, protecting public health, and ensuring responsible advocacy in matters of public interest and legislation. The decision emphasized the importance of balanced legal proceedings and the need for government commitment to implementing laws for the welfare of the people.
|
