Editorial

Source: Indian Express

Introduction

The Karnataka High Court’s recent decision related to ban on hookahs is a step towards public health. The bench in the case of R Bharath and ors v. State of Karnataka (2024) upheld the ban on hookah implemented by the state of Karnataka.

What is the Background of R Bharath and ors v. State of Karnataka Case?

• Several restaurant owners challenged the state government’s notification imposing a ban on hookah sales in public places.
  • These establishments, operating under the guise of hookah bars, contested the ban on grounds of Article 19(1)(g) which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or trade.
• The High Court adjudged the case based on constitutional provisions, notably Article 47 and Article 19(1)(g).
• The Karnataka HC emphasized that these rights are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it concerns public welfare.

What is Article 47 of the Constitution of India, 1950?

• Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health
  • The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

What was the Role of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) in the Verdict?

• The court’s judgment was extended to Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003.
  • By analyzing the provisions of COTPA and its accompanying rules, the court determined that the act of providing hookah services falls within the purview of prohibited activities, aligning with the legislative intent to curb tobacco consumption.
• The court interpreted the term 'service' under COTPA regulations.
• It differentiated between the passive act of smoking in designated areas and the active provision of hookah services.
• The court also highlighted the inherent involvement of human intervention in preparing and serving hookah, akin to other hospitality services.

What will the Implications of Karnataka High Court’s Verdict of Hookah Ban?

• The Karnataka High Court’s ruling sets a precedent for stringent enforcement of anti-tobacco laws, prioritizing public health over commercial interests.
• By affirming the state’s authority to regulate hookah bars and similar establishments, the court led proactive measures to combat substance abuse and protect citizens’ well-being.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Karnataka HC’s decision to uphold the ban on hookahs reflects a resolute commitment to public health and constitutional values. By aligning legal interpretation with the broader objectives of safeguarding citizen welfare, the court’s judgment reaffirms the state’s prerogative to enact measures in the interest of public welfare.