Authored By: Chetansi Dubey
University of Lucknow Faculty of Law
Introduction
Murli S. Deora v. Union of India was a significant legal case that addressed the issue of public smoking in India. The court ruled that a nationwide ban on public smoking was necessary to protect the right to a healthy life, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This decision recognized the rights of passive smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke against their will.
The case marked a landmark moment in Indian environmental law, establishing that the government has the power to restrict personal freedoms in public places for the sake of public health. The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the protection of individuals from harmful environmental factors like secondhand smoke.
The court’s decision also aimed to reduce the number of smokers in India, as tobacco is a highly addictive substance. According to the World Health Organization, tobacco is a major risk factor for chronic lung and cardiovascular diseases.
Facts
Murli S. Deora filed a public interest lawsuit in the Supreme Court of India to advocate for a ban on smoking in public places. Deora, a prominent human rights activist, argued that public smoking negatively impacts the health of citizens. The lawsuit was based on Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which allows individuals to file petitions to protect their fundamental rights.
Lack of adequate legislation to uphold the right to a healthy life:
Murli S. Deora cited the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 1975 as evidence that smoking is harmful to health. This act acknowledges the link between smoking and various diseases, including lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, and several types of cancer.
Deora also referred to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Bill, 2001, which recognized tobacco as a significant public health threat responsible for a large number of deaths in India each year.
However, neither of these laws included a ban on public smoking.
Hazardous impacts of Public Smoking:
Tobacco smoke contains harmful substances like nicotine, tar, carcinogens, carbon monoxide, irritants, and smoke particles, which contribute to various diseases, including cancer. Smoking also pollutes the air.
In India alone, diseases caused by tobacco result in a loss of productivity worth approximately Rs. 13,500 crores per year.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco-related diseases cause approximately seven million deaths worldwide each year.
The case addressed the following questions:
- Does public smoking violate the right to life of non-smokers or passive smokers, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
- Should there be a ban on public smoking?
Court’s analysis
The court ruled that public smoking has serious health consequences and imposed a ban on smoking in several public places. These include:
- Auditoriums
- Hospitals
- Health institutions
- Educational institutions
- Libraries
- Court buildings
- Public offices
- Public transportation (including railways)
The court emphasized that this ban was intended to protect both smokers and non-smokers from the harmful effects of tobacco.
Author’s analysis
Right to healthy environment is infringed
Public smoking infringes upon the right to a healthy environment. This case represents judicial activism, where the court established a binding guideline for banning public smoking. The decision was based on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.
Passive smokers, who are exposed to secondhand smoke without their consent, have their rights violated. This case affirmed the right to a healthy life as a fundamental right, previously upheld in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar.
A ban on public smoking was essential to protect the health of citizens and reduce air pollution, which can cause respiratory problems. Air pollution affects non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution introduced Article 48A and Article 51A(g), which make it the duty of both the state and individuals to protect the environment.
Right to movement is infringed
Public smoking infringes upon the right to movement. This case supports the right to movement as a part of personal liberty, as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.
Passive smokers may limit their movement to avoid areas where people are smoking, restricting their ability to move freely within India. This violates Article 19 (1) (d), which guarantees the right to move freely throughout the country.
While there are some reasonable restrictions on movement, public smoking does not fall under these categories.
Public smoking violates the Golden Triangle rule.
This rule, established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, states that a violation of Article 21 (right to life) also infringes upon Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedoms).
Public smoking infringes on Article 14, the right to equality. While the state can reasonably discriminate among individuals to achieve certain objectives, this exception does not apply to public smoking. Passive smokers are not reasonably discriminated against, as they are deprived of a healthy environment without any justifiable reason.
Article 19, which provides various freedoms to Indian citizens, is also violated by public smoking. The freedom to move in a healthy environment is restricted due to public smoking.
D Conflict between the Right to Personal Liberty of one individual infringing on the right to life of the other due to a ban on public smoking
The ban on public smoking in Murli S. Deora v. Union of India restricts the personal liberty of smokers. However, the right to personal liberty should be exercised in a way that does not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case, public smoking infringes upon the right to life of non-smokers.
The right to life is a fundamental right protected by both the Indian Constitution and international covenants. Because the right to life is more important than the right to personal liberty, a ban on public smoking is justified.
The liberty mentioned in Article 21 is personal and cannot be exercised in public. Therefore, a ban on public smoking does not violate personal liberty. Smokers can still enjoy their liberty without harming others.
The right to life applies to both smokers and non-smokers. Smoking can lead to lung problems, cancer, breathing difficulties, and death. A ban on public smoking can reduce the frequency of smoking and protect the health of everyone.
The ban was imposed based on the principle of utilitarianism, which states that laws should maximize pleasure for the greatest number of people. By prioritizing the right to life for both smokers and non-smokers, the court upheld a balanced approach.
Conflict between the right to livelihood and right to life due to the ban on public smoking
The ban on public smoking created a conflict between the right to livelihood of those working in the tobacco industry and the right to life and a healthy environment of individuals affected by secondhand smoke. The right to livelihood is considered a fundamental right, as established in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation.
A ban on public smoking would reduce the demand for tobacco products, leading to job losses in the tobacco industry. This would impact the livelihood of many people, potentially resulting in loss of human dignity.
Conclusion
Murli S. Deora v. Union of India is a notable example of the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing issues not adequately covered by existing laws. Through Article 141, the court has the power to provide guidelines on specific matters.
The Supreme Court has issued numerous guidelines, such as the Vishakha Guidelines (leading to the POSH Act) and the Gaurav Jain Guidelines (protecting the rights of children of prostitutes).
Murli S. Deora is a significant case that sheds light on environmental health and the impact of harmful practices on all living beings. The case expanded the scope of Article 21 by banning public smoking and recognizing the right to a healthy life and environment.
Reference(S):
Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
SSC Online, http://www.ssconline.co.in
Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica
Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
