Murli Deora vs. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 40

Court – Supreme court of India

Citation – Writ petition (civil) 316 of 1999

Bench – M.B. Shah & R.P. Sethi

Petitioner: Murli S. Deora

Respondent: Union of India and Ors.

Case Introduction 

This case related to Public smoking case , petitioner (Murli  Deora ) Filed the petition because even people who do not smoke were having to inhale the passive smoke , so this was not good for health a non- smoker and also endangered the  lives of individual. the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 So, that is also their rights to consume smoke of cigarettes or not. A two- judge’s panel made up of M.B. Shah and R.P. Sethi heard the plea. Almost 800,000 persons in India lose their lives to tobacco use (cigarettes) every year.

Introduction of Murli Deora

Murli Deora was born in 10 Jan 1937, served as the President of the Mumbai Regional Congress Committee for 22 years from 1981 to 2003 he was also a businessman, social worker and member of parliament in both the upper and lower houses, and a minister of cabinet rank. Murli Deora was died on 24 November 2014.

Issues Raised in the case

1. Whether the act of public smoking infringes upon the right to life provided under Article 21 of a Person who does not smoke or is a passive smoker?
2. Whether a ban be imposed on public smoking?
3. When people know the danger associated with the smoking, why do they still continue to smoke?
4. Should government alone make the efforts to control cigarette smoking in public Places?

Facts of the Case

1. Cigarettes Tobacco related diseases causes an estimated eight Hundred thousand deaths in India per year, With Treatment of tobacco causes diseases resulting in a Loss of Rupees 13,500 Crore annually.         
2. The World health organization estimated that up to Seven million deaths worldwide per year.
3. The case filed in the form of public Interest Litigation Under Article 32 of the Indian constitution in the Supreme court of India by the Petitioner.
4. Primary contentions raised was that non smokers, which Include women, children, senior citizens and every category of civilians, should not be exposed to the ill effects of passive Smoke.
5. Smoking also effect on environment; air pollution, our lungs, animals, soil degradation, etc.
6. Two acts entered into force are cigarette Acts 1975 and cigarette and other Tobacco bill 2001, these acts deals with the production, supply, advertisement etc. of cigarette and tobacco products.
7. Article 21 and Article 19, 32 infringement public tobacco Smoking because Article 21 under Right to life is affected as a non- smoker may became a victim of someone smoking in a public Place. Or Article 19 (1) (g) Right to freedom for public health concern and Article 32 used only to file a writ petition under Art. 32 (PIL) Public Interest Litigation, Which allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court Directly to seek redress on behalf of the public.

Golden Triangle of the Article in this case: Article 19, Article 21, Article 32

Article 19– Right to Freedom; there are reasonable restrictions to restrict a citizen from moving freely within the Indian territories but in the case of public tobacco Smoking individuals do not fall.

Article 21-Right to life and personal liberty; Related to the case, Article 21 Infringe because Smoking fumes are endangered life, everyone has right to live healthy life.

Article 32-Related to the case, this case was writ petition Filed under article 32, Supreme Court, Violation of fundamental rights and every individual the right to move the Supreme Court.

Legal Maxims apply in this case

Ratio Decidendi of the Case: meaning ‘the rational for the decision’

Smoking is injurious to health and may affect the health of smokers, but there is no reason that the health of passive smokers should also be adversely affected, The statement of objects and reasons for the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 1975, and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Bill, 2001, confirm the harmful effects of smoking on health. The court directed and prohibited smoking in public places, including auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions, educational institutions, libraries, court buildings, public offices, public conveyances, and railways. The court also directed the Union of India to give wide publicity to the order by electronic and print media to make the general public aware of the prohibition of smoking in public places.

Smoking Related Act

Primary smoking related act in India is the cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, (COTPA) Cigarettes and other tobacco Product Act, which aims to discourage tobacco consumption by regulating its production, sale and advertisement across the country.

Public Smoking Ban, Age Restriction under 18, Advertising Restrictions, packaging requirements, Sale near Educational Institutions.

Cigarettes and other Tobacco products Act, 2003(COTPA)

COTPA, 2003 Section 4 of the Act, Prohibition of smoking in a public place which describe “No person shall smoke in any public Places, Section 7 of the Act restricts the trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products, Section 5 prohibits the advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products, Section 6 of the prohibit the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 or in a particular area.

A public Place is any place that the public has access to, including hospitals, restaurants; educational institutions, and public offices However, open spaces are not considered public Places.

Hotels with at least 30 rooms, restaurants with at 30 seats and Airport can have a separate smoking area.

Note- Violating the COTPA is a punishable offense, with fine Rs. 200.

Prohibition of smoking in public places Rules, 2008:-

Rule 3 – Prohibition of smoking in a public places

[1]The owner, proprietor, manager, supervisor or in charge of the affairs of a public place shall ensure that:

(a) No person smokes in the public place (under his jurisdiction/Implied).

(b) The board as specified in schedule II is displayed prominently at the entrance of the public place, in case there are more than one entrance at each such entrance and conspicuous place(s) inside. In case if there are than floor, at each floor including the staircase and entrance to the lift/s at each floor.

(c) No ashtrays, matches, lighters or other things designed to facilitate smoking are provided in the public place.

Cigarettes (regulation of production, supply and distribution) Act, 1975

 This Act define “Advertisement” and “Cigarette” , “distribution”, “Export”, “Foreign Language”, “Import”, “Indian language”, “Label”, “package”, “prescribed”, “production”, “sale”, “specified warning”.

Laws Involved

*Article 19 of the Indian constitution

*Article 21 of the Indian constitution

*Article 32 of the Indian constitution

*Cigarettes and other Tobacco products Act, 2003

*Cigarettes (Regulation of production, supply and distribution) Act, 1975 

Judgment of the Case

*Judgment Delivered by M.B. Shah & R.P. Sethi. Supreme Court passed the Judgment date 2 Nov 2001, this infringes upon the personal liberty of the Smokers to enjoy the consumption of tobacco Smoking. It is to be noted that the rights should

Be enjoyed in such a way that it does not infringe upon any right of another individual. The learned attorney general of India confirmed on Behalf of the Union (As an Respondent). This infringes upon the personal liberty of the Smokers to enjoy the consumption of tobacco Smoking. It is to be noted that the rights should be enjoyed in such a way that it does not infringe upon any right of another individual. The division bench in this case upheld the grievous Impact of smoking tobacco in public places and imposed a ban on smoking in public places and directed the union and state government to implement the ban and prohibit smoking under Article 21,

 Places as specified in this case namely:

• Auditorium
• Hospital buildings
• Health Institutions
• Educational Institutions
• Libraries
• Court Buildings
• Public offices
• Public conveyances (Inclusive of Railways)

 Consequently, the cigarettes and other Tobacco product Act, 2003 made provision for banning smoking and tobacco products in Public Places. The Supreme Court has banned smoking in public Places through a process known as judicial Activism and it also declared that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Conclusion

The case of Murli S Deora is a prime example of the judicial using its judicial Activism to provide immediate relief to a situation in which any law is not enacted for the time being. This power to provide guidelines on a particular issue is makes under Article 141 of the constitution. The case murli S. Deora plays a significant role in understanding the issue related to the health of the environment and that harm to the environment is ultimately harmful to all living beings. The Article 21 by banning public smoking in recognition of the right to a healthy life and environment for Individuals.

 

References

The legal Quorum

Indiankanoon. organisation