NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday banned surrogate advertisement of tobacco products by lifting a seven-year-old interim order of the Bombay high court.
According to an agency report, the court also slammed the government for "conniving" with the tobacco lobby, disregarding the health of citizens.
The Bombay HC in 2006 had admitted petitions by manufacturers challenging certain provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution (Amendment) Rules, 2005 and had stayed Rule 2(e) which banned indirect advertisement of tobacco products.
The HC had passed the interim order on March 27, 2006 as the Union government, despite issuance of notice to it, had failed to assign an advocate to appear before the court and oppose the plea of tobacco product manufacturers for a stay. An NGO 'Health for Millions' had moved the Supreme Court challenging the HC's interim order, which was ordered to be in force till the disposal of petitions.
The SC admitted the appeal in January this year and sought response from the Union government. On Monday, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda lifted the stay imposed by the HC, which will continue to hear the manufacturers' petition challenging certain rules framed under the anti-tobacco legislation.
The petitioner said the interim stay on implementation of Rule 2(e) of the 2005 Rules, which defined the word "indirect advertisements", had resulted in rampant "surrogate advertisements" of tobacco products.
Tobacco companies were extensively promoting their products through various medium specifically targeting children, in violation of Section 5 of the Tobacco Control Act, 2003 read with Rule 2(e) of the 2005 Rules, the petition said.
Surrogate advertisements and targeting of children violated Article 13 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the petitioner said. Article 13(1) of FCTC states that "parties recognize that a comprehensive ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship would reduce the consumption of tobacco products".
The petitioner also alleged that the law had put limits on the size of hoardings on cigarette shops. But in violation of rules, shops were sporting much bigger advertisement hoardings without any statutory health warnings on it, it had complained.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario