SC seeks views of centre, states on banning “killer” cigarettes
16 Aug 2014
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the central and state governments in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the sale and consumption of cigarettes, bidis and cigars that claim thousands of lives in the country every year.
According the PIL filed by Sunil Rajpal, a film producer, India spent more on treating cancer caused by tobacco products than the revenue it earned from their sale.
A bench comprising Chief Justice RM Lodh and Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman issued notices to the centre and all the states and union territories on the PIL that seeks a complete ban on the production of cigarettes and other tobacco products across the country.
Counsel for the petitioner Aditya Agrawal told the court that Rs30,000 crore is spent every year on treatment of smoking-related ailments but the government is not interested in banning its use for fear of revenue loss.
The petitioner called for smoking to be banned after considering the ill effects of smoking (active and passive) so that human life could be saved, to which the CJI said, ''It is for the lawmakers to decide.''
Citing a World Health Organisation report under 'Tobacco Free Initiative', the petitioner said, "Teens who smoke are three times more likely than non-smokers to use alcohol and 22 times more likely to use cocaine."
According to the petition, "Smoking is associated with a host of other risky behaviour such as fighting and engaging in unprotected sex; smoking hurts young people's physical fitness in terms of both performance and endurance."
He said, ''We are lacking the will to curb this menace from the society and till date, reports are coming from various sources that by 2020, the death toll due to smoking in India will be higher than any other disease. Each year, exposure to second-hand smoking kills 600,000 people.''
The SC bench cited the principle adopted by the apex court in its 1988 judgment to close down tanneries for discharging untreated effluent into the Ganga.
"We are conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue; but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people," the court had said in its 1988 judgment.
The current regulations like prohibition of sale of tobacco products to minors and banning of their sale around educational institutions had hardly stopped access of minors to cigarettes who were not aware that smoking meant inhaling nicotine, tar, potential carcinogens, carbon monoxide irritants and asphyxiates, which could cause serious diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular ailments.
It also said that permitting smoking infringed the right to clean air of non-smokers, who were exposed to the harmful effects of passive smoking.
The petitioner said the statutory warnings have little or no dissuading effect on young smokers, who got swayed by the actor holding a cigarette in his hand rather than get convinced by the harmful effect of smoking.
The PIL said while the law prohibited sponsorship of sporting and cultural events by tobacco manufacturers, "still, sponsorship of sports, musical events, award functions, fashion shows, festivals are routinely done by tobacco manufacturers."
