MURLI S. DEORA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 02-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH, R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
MURLI S. DEORA 
v. 
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. 
650 
' 
... 
.• 
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 
A 
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, pro-
vides, "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 indus-
try". 
' 
E 
F 
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 parti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.