MURLI S. DEORA

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS,

NOVEMBER 2, 2001.

[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Constitution of Indid, 1950 : . . . (irticles 2 j and 32-Riglzt to life-Smoking at pubiic places-:--Deprives a . non-smokerof his life indirectly-There is no rea8on to compel non-smokers to be helpless. victims of air pollution-Smoking in public places prohibited- ·

Directions given to Union of bzdia, State Governments and Union Tenitaries to take effective steps to ensure prqhibiting smoking at public places~Environ- . mental la;~-Air pollution.

n Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975-Statement of objects and reasons-Smoking of cigarettes is hannful-lt can lead to grave health hazards including fatal diseases-Smoking at public places-Beld, Actto be implemented-Smoking at public Places prohibited--,- Directions to Uni.on of India, State Governments and Union Territories to take . effective steps to ensure pmhibiting smoking at public places-General public to be made aware by taking necessary effective steps to give wide p/!blicity of this order-Compliance report to be submitted to the Cowt-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products ( Pmhibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distlibution) Bill, 2001 .

. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 316of1999.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Attomery General, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, R.S. Suri, Vi pin Sanghi, Prateek Jalan, C. Radhakrishnan, P. Parmeswaran, S.K. Sabhaiwal, Ninnalal Gupta, AlkaAgarwal, Ranjan Mukherjee, M.P.S. Tomar, Jabar Singh for Ms. Sandhya Goswami, A. MariaplJ.rtham, Ms. Arnna Mathur, V.G.

Pragasam, Rahul Ray, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Sanjay K. Shandilya for V.D.

Khanna, Anil Shrivastav, Ashok Sagai:, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar for Rajan Narain, A.nmesh\var Gupta (NP), Ms~ A. Subhashini, Ajay K. Agarawal, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Mahesh Chandra, Ms. Krishna Sam1"' Ms. Asha G. Nair, Ms. Ngangom H Junior Luwang for the appearing parties.

...

MURLI S. DEDRA v. U.0.1. 651

The following Order of the Comt was delivered :

Heard the learned counsel for the patties.

Fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, inter alia, provides that none shall be deprived of bis life without due process

of law. Then - why a non-smoker should.be.afflicted by various djseases B including lWlg cancer or of heart, only because he is required to go to public places? Is it not indirectly depriving of his life without any process of law? The answer is obviously - 'yes'. Undisputedly, smoking is injurious to health and may affect the health of smokers but there is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected, In any case, there is noreason to C compel non-smokers to be helpless victims of air pollution.

The statement of objects and reason of (The) Cigarettes(Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975, inter alia, provides, "Smoking of cigarettes is a hannful habit and, in course of time, can lead to grave health hazards. Researches carried out in various parts of the world have confirmed D th<it there is a relationship between smoking of cigarettes and lung cancer, chronic bronchitis; certain diseases of the heart and arteries; cancer of bladder, prostrate, mouth pharynx and oesophagus; peptic ulcer etc., are also reported to be among the ill-effects of cigarette smoking."

Similarly, the statement of objects and reasons of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Produc.ts (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Bill, 2001, provides, "Tobacco is universally regarded as one of the. major public health hazards and is responsible directly or indirectly for an estimated eight lakh deaths annually in the country. It has also been found tl1at treatment of tobacco related diseases and the loss of productivity caused therein cost the country almost Rs. 13,500 crores annually, w}lich more than offsets all the benefits accruing in the form of revenue and employment generated by tobacco industry". '

In tl1is view of the matter, when this petition under Article 32 of the G Constitution of India came for orders on 31st August, 2001, we have passed order for implementing 1975 Act. At that time of hearing, learned Attorney General as well as counsel for the parties submitted that considering harmful effect of smoking, smoking in public places is required to be prohibited. On this submisstion, we sought response of the Central Government. As no affi- H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2001] SUPP. 4 S~C.R.

davit was filed during the stipulated time byd1e Central Government, on 28th September, 2001, we wei:e required to adjourn the matter. Today also, when the matter came up for hearing ilo response is filed on behalf of the Central Government. However, learned Attorney General with all emphasis at his command submitted that appropriate order banlling smoking in public places be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted to the aforesaid effect. Counsel appearing for other respondents also supported the same.

In the petition, it is pointed out that tobacco smoking contams harmful contents includiilg nicotine, tar, potential carcinogens, carbon monoxide, .irritants,.asphyiates and smoke particles which are the cause of many diseases including the cancer. It is alleged that three million people die every year as a result of illness related to the use of tobacco products of which one million people belong to developing countries like India. The World Health Organisation is stated to have estimated that tobacco. related deaths can rise to a whopping seven million per year. According to this organisation, in tlie last half century in the developing countries alone smoking bas killed more than sixty million people. Tobacco smoking also adds to the air pollution. Besides cancer, tobacco smoking is responsible for various other fatal diseases to the mankind.

. It is further submitted that statutory provisions are being made for prohibiting smoking in pubiic places and the Bill introduced in tb, e Parliament is pending consideration before a Select Committee~ The State ofRajasthan has claimed to have passed Act. No. 14 of 2000 to provide for prohibition of smoking in place of public work or use and in public service vehieles for that State. It is stated that in Delhi also there is prohibition of smoking in public. places.

 Learned Attorney General for India submits and all the counsel appearing for the other parties agree that considering the adverse effect .of smking .in public places, lt WOWd be in the interests Of the citiens to prohibit the smoking in public places till the statutory provision is made and implemented by the legislative enactment. The persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking ori account. ofactS of the smok-. ers.· .... . . . . . . . . . ' ' . 1 . . : .

Realising the gravity of the ituaticin and considering the adverse et; fecf ofsmoking on smokers and passive smokers, we directand prohibit smoking H in public places and issue directions to the Union of India, State Govennents

MURLI S. DEORA v. U.0.1. 653

as well as the Union TetTitories to take effective steps to ensme prohibiting A smoking in public places, namely :

1. Auditoriums

2. Hospital Buidings B

3. Health Institutions

4. Educational Institutions

5. Libraries

6. Court Buildings c

. 7. Public Otlice

8. Public Conveyances, including Railways.

Learned Attorney General for India assured the court that Union of India D shall take necessary effective steps to give wide publicity to this order by electronic as well as print media to make the general public aware of this order of prohibition of smoking. ·

We further direct the Registrar General to intimate the State Govern- . ments Union Territ01ies as well as the Commissioners of Police as mentioned in our orders dated 3 lst August, 2001 and 28th September, 2001 of this Court with directions for submission of their compliance rport in this Court within five weeks from today. Union of India shall also file its response at the earliest.

List after six weeks.

R.P.

Petition still pending.