Delhi HC sets aside single judge ruling quashing notifications prohibiting manufacture, sale of gutka, pan masala

New Delhi: The Division Bench of Delhi High Court on Monday set aside the single judge's order passed on Sep 27, 2022, which quashed various notifications prohibiting the manufacture or sale of gutka, pan masala, flavoured tobacco etc in the national capital territory.
The bench headed by Delhi's Chief Justice Satish Chander Sharma also comprising Justice Yashwant Varma while allowing appeals said, "Appeals shall stand allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated September 23, 2022 shall stand set aside." The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Union Government together with the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi have preferred the appeals in the matter and challenged the Single Bench order. Since 2015, seven notifications were issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety.
The single bench Judgment came on a batch of writ petitions which had assailed the validity of a Notification dated 25 March 2015 passed by the Commissioner (Food Safety), GNCTD prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of tobacco, flavoured/scented, or mixed with any of the said additives and described as gutka, pan masala, flavoured/scented tobacco, Kharra or otherwise called by any other name in its packaged or unpackaged form and sold either separately or as one composite product in the National Capital Territory.

The single bench earlier while quashing the said notifications said that it was conscious of the harmful effects and various diseases caused by the use of tobacco, both smokeless and smoking and that smoking is injurious to public health and added that it "accordingly condemns and discourages the use of any form of tobacco".
The Division Bench through this judgement held that while the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) adopt measures regulating the smoking of cigarettes and consumption of tobacco products in public places and around the vicinity of educational institutions, its provisions neither comprehensively control nor regulate all aspects relating to the scheduled products.
The bench said that we are of the firm opinion that there existed no justification for the Impugned Notifications being quashed on grounds which have found acceptance with the learned Judge. In any case, Article 14 clearly did not warrant the Impugned Notifications being set aside. (ANI)