Tobacco Institute of India v. Union of India
ILR 2018 KAR 991
In the High Court of Karnataka
W.P. 4470/2015
Before Justice B.S. Patil and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on December 15, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Interpretation of “reasonable restrictions” in line with Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA), 2003 (Section 3(o), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 8, 10, 31)
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2), 19(1)(g), 19(6) 77(1), 77(2), 118, 253)
• The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Section 3)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Central Government amended the COPTA Rules, 2008 via the COTPA Amendment Rules, 2014.
• Among other things, the amended rules required 85% of the tobacco package to show the health warning.
• The rules were challenged in various avenues, and ultimately it came to the Karnataka High Court to decide their constitutional validity.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Ministry of Health had no authority to frame the rules. The Ministry should have published the rules in the name of the president. Moreover, the Health Ministry cannot unilaterally make rules under Section 31 of the COPTA. Therefore,  the rules are manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable.

• The respondent’s counsel argued the court should not strike down the rules merely because they have not been published in the President’s name. Further, as international health regulations and WHO come under the purview of the Health Ministry, it has the power to make the rules.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench concurred that there is no material on record to justify that the changes in the health warning were arbitrary and unreasonable. Or for that case, violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(6). However, the provisions relating to the rotation of the warnings were unreasonable and violated the right to trade. 
• The bench discussed reasonable restrictions in light of the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Final Decision

• The bench allowed the writ petition in part by setting aside the COPTA Amendment Rules, 2014; however, it dismissed the challenge to the 2008 Rules.