Read Time: 04 minutes
The PIL sought directives against the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to take swift action against the unauthorized online sale of hookahs, lacking proper health warnings, and to implement mechanisms for age verification and regulation of online hookah sales.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, directed the Central Government to decide on a public interest litigation seeking action against the illegal online sale of hookah without the inclusion of a specific health warning.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the matter involved statutory provisions that were allegedly not being enforced, and inquired about the responsible implementing agency. The bench urged the Centre to establish a standard procedure for addressing the concerns.
The petition argued that the sale of hookahs in public places posed a health risk through secondhand smoke, infringing upon the public's right to health and safety under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It further contended that the unregulated sale and promotion of tobacco products on e-commerce platforms violated the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA).
During the hearing, the petitioner foundation asserted that the smoke from hookahs contaminates the food being served in restaurants thus violating COTPA. The petitioner further contended that “Even if we make the smoking area a different place, smoke from hookah cannot be contained”.
The court inquired whether the petitioner had made any formal representation before approaching the judiciary. The petitioner responded that certain RTI applications along with letters were filed, with responses still pending.
The court observed that the petitioner, JagatMitra Foundation, had not approached the respondents with a formal representation prior to filing the petition. Consequently, the court ordered the Centre to treat the PIL as a representation and instructed the government to take appropriate action within three months. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue further legal proceedings.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue but advised Aggarwal to first submit a formal representation to the Centre. The bench suggested that the PIL could be treated as such a representation, a proposition to which the petitioner agreed.
Case Title: JagatMitra Foundation v Union of India
Please Login or Register
