Centre’s Stance on Disclosure of Nicotine and Tar Levels
The Union government has conveyed to the Kerala High Court its concerns regarding the mandatory disclosure of nicotine and tar levels on cigarette packaging, suggesting that such a move could prove counter-productive. This was highlighted in the case Sangeerthana M v Union of India & ors.
In a detailed affidavit submitted to the Court, the government emphasized that all tobacco products pose inherent health risks, regardless of their specific nicotine and tar content. The affidavit argued that providing numerical figures on cigarette packs could potentially mislead consumers into thinking that certain tobacco products are safer than others. Instead, the government advocates for the use of pictorial health warnings, which it believes are more effective in communicating the dangers of smoking to the public.
Legal Context and Petitioner’s Argument
The affidavit was filed in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by advocate Sangeerthana M. The PIL urges the enforcement of Section 7(5) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA), which mandates the display of nicotine and tar content on cigarette packaging. Despite this provision, the government has yet to implement it.
Previously, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM directed the government to reconsider its stance on labeling cigarette packs with nicotine and tar levels as per Section 7(5) of COTPA.
Government’s Examination and Conclusion
The government’s response was informed by a comprehensive review of the current statutory framework, India’s tobacco control strategies, obligations under the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO-FCTC), and relevant scientific data. Ultimately, it concluded that mandating the disclosure of nicotine and tar levels is not advisable.
More Read
The affidavit underscored that nicotine and tar represent only a fraction of the toxic and carcinogenic substances in tobacco products. “Providing numerical data solely on nicotine and tar may lead to incomplete and potentially misleading information about the health risks of tobacco use,” it stated.
Current Measures and Legal Implications
The government pointed out that existing regulations already require pictorial and textual health warnings on cigarette packs, aimed at effectively conveying the health hazards of tobacco consumption. It further stated that whether Section 7(5) should be enforced via notification is a policy decision, and the Court cannot compel the government to act in a specific manner unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality.
The Union government has consciously decided against notifying Section 7(5) of COTPA. During a brief hearing, Deputy Solicitor General OM Shalina informed the Court of the government’s position. The case is scheduled for another hearing in three weeks, with advocate Sangeerthana M representing herself.
