9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act. 2. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 14, 21, and 31. 3. Excessive delegation of power under Section 3(d) of the Act. 4. Constitutionality of Section 8 of the Act regarding seizure and detention. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act: The petitioners challenged the Act on the grounds that it violated their fundamental rights and was discriminatory. The Act aimed to control the advertisement of drugs, prohibit advertisements for remedies with alleged magic qualities, and address related matters. The court examined the historical context, the purpose of the Act, and the legislative intent, concluding that the Act was designed to prevent self-medication and misleading advertisements. The court upheld the Act's constitutionality, noting that it was in the public interest to regulate such advertisements to protect public health. 2. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners argued that the Act infringed their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech), 19(1)(f) & (g) (right to property and trade), 14 (equality before the law), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 31 (right to property). The court held that: - Article 19(1)(a): The court found that commercial advertisements do not fall within the scope of freedom of speech as they primarily serve business interests rather than the propagation of ideas. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the Act did not violate Article 19(1)(a). - Articles 19(1)(f) & (g): The court determined that the restrictions were reasonable and in the public interest, aimed at preventing self-medication and ensuring public health. - Article 14: The court did not find any discriminatory elements in the Act. - Articles 21 and 31: The court did not find any infringement of these rights as the Act's provisions were aimed at protecting public health and welfare. 3. Excessive Delegation of Power under Section 3(d): The petitioners contended that Section 3(d) of the Act, which allowed the executive to specify additional diseases or conditions by rules, constituted excessive delegation of legislative power. The court agreed, stating that the Act did not provide clear criteria or standards for such delegation, rendering it unconstitutional. The court struck down the phrase "or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made under this Act" from Section 3(d). 4. Constitutionality of Section 8 Regarding Seizure and Detention: Section 8 of the Act allowed authorized persons to seize and detain any document, article, or thing believed to contain an objectionable advertisement. The petitioners argued that this section violated their rights under Articles 21 and 31 due to the lack of procedural safeguards. The court agreed, noting the absence of limitations, rules, and safeguards for the exercise of seizure and detention powers. Consequently, the court declared Section 8 unconstitutional and directed the return of all goods seized under this provision. Conclusion: The court upheld the constitutionality of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, except for the excessive delegation of power under Section 3(d) and the seizure and detention provisions under Section 8. The Act's primary objective was to prevent self-medication and misleading advertisements, which the court found to be in the public interest. The unconstitutional provisions were severable, allowing the rest of the Act to remain in force. The court directed the return of goods seized under the invalidated Section 8 and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
|
