Key Points

A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji noted at the outset that the petitioner, advocate Rajasimhan, had failed to disclose that a disclaimer on smoking appears on the back cover of the book.

The bench held that the issue fell squarely within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities constituted under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA), and not the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

"In view of the statutory scheme under the COTPA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, such matters are to be decided by expert bodies constituted under the Act after hearing parties," it observed.

The court further expressed reservations about the bona fides of the petition, observing that the petitioner, despite being advised, had refused to approach the competent authority. It noted that the plea was filed without proper legal examination or verification of relevant facts, including the presence of the disclaimer, and cautioned against the misuse of PILs for publicity.

The petitioner had contended that the cover glorifies smoking as a symbol of intellectualism and could influence impressionable youth, particularly women.

He argued that the absence of a statutory warning amounted to indirect advertisement of tobacco products in violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the COTPA, and sought directions to restrain further circulation of the book and to mandate its re-publication with appropriate health warnings.

Rejecting the plea, the bench reiterated that such regulatory matters fall within the ambit of statutory mechanisms and cannot be adjudicated through PILs.

- IANS