Punjab and Haryana High Court flags passive smoking ‘menace’

Describing passive smoking as a “menace” affecting large sections of the non-smoking population, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed “hope and expectation" that the authorities concerned will “delve” on the issue. The court also directed the UT administration to consider and decide on a representation on “improper implementation” of anti-tobacco law.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing a public interest litigation filed against the Union of India and other respondents by Dipti Singh through counsel Ranjan Lakhanpal. Among other things, the petitioner was seeking action following alleged “insufficient and improper implementation” of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003.

Taking note of a representation dated March 4, 2024, placed on record by the petitioner, the Bench asked the competent authority of the UT Administration to “apply its mind and consider the grievance” raised in the document. The court made it clear that the decision taken on the representation was required to be filed before its Registry within 60 days.

“With the hope and expectation that the competent authorities will delve upon the issue, since menace of passive smoking affects lot many non-smokers, this Court disposes of this petition,” the Division Bench observed.

Before parting with the order, the Bench observed that the States of Punjab and Haryana were also impleaded as parties to the petition. But no representation had been submitted before the state governments. As such, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file separate representations before the competent authorities of the two states. The Bench further made it clear that the representations, if filed within 30 days, would be decided by the authorities through a “speaking order” and the outcome would be communicated to the petitioner within 60 days of submission.

The PIL was argued by advocate Shubhkarman Singh Sandhu. The UT Administration was represented by senior panel counsel Ashish Rawal and panel counsel Rohit Kaushik. Additional Advocate-General Deepak Balyan appeared for Haryana and Saurav Khurana for Punjab. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain and senior panel counsel Dheeraj Jain.

Chandigarh