In this article, Gaurav Tripathi does a case analysis on Murli s. Deora v. Union of India.

INTRODUCTION

It is a very well-known and renowned fact that cigarette smoking is injurious to health. Vonnegut said that “Cigarette smoking is the classy way to commit suicide”. It is a real paradox that people besides being aware of the consequences of the smoking to the smokers as well as non-smokers people continue to smoke affecting not only their health but also the society at a large pace. Even after the warning forced the manufacturers, cigarette still continues to be manufactured, stocked and sold the world over.

BACKGROUND

• Factual Summary

Tobacco consumption in the developing countries like India is very prevalent in the smoke and non-smoking ways causing a wide range of diseases. It is estimated that in India there are about eight hundred thousand deaths caused per year due to the consumption of tobacco and also there is a loss of about Rs.13,500 Crores annually which are spent to treat the diseases caused due to tobacco consumption. According to the reports and statistics of last fifty years of the World Health Organisation, it was found that there arise about seven million deaths per year all over the world and around sixty million deaths have been caused in the developing countries due to tobacco consumption during previous fifty years.

Tobacco consumption in public places is equally dangerous as it highly affects the health of non-smokers causing lung cancer, another disease, the reason for the death of a large number of people. This is a clear picture of infringement of article 21 of the Constitution of India which clearly states that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal property except according to procedure established by law[1].

Henceforth, the Petitioner, Murli S. Deora brought this issue into public interest on the basis of the right to life and liberty embraced in article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

When the case was taken into consideration, two facts were bought into force were the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 1975 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Bill, 2001. These both acts are concerned towards the causes of tobacco consumption and smoking and public health, but still not implemented or banned.

ISSUES

• Is the decision of the court of prohibiting smoking only at public places correct?
• When people know the dangers associated with the smoking, why do they still continue to smoke?
• Should government alone make the efforts to control cigarette smoking in public places?

ANALYSIS

• Cigarette smoking is injurious to health. This is a fact which is known by all but even then people continue to smoke, which not only affects their health but also the health of the people in their surroundings. It is found in several studies that passive smoking reduces the life of the smokers by up to 25 years, but it is known by very few that smoking, if affects the health of smokers then it also affects the health of non –smokers who inhale the smoke and affected by diseases like lung cancer and other respiratory diseases like asthma. In the following case, it was observed that the people who are non – smokers, their right guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution is infringed. Therefore, agreeing to the issues raised by the parties to the petition the court found that smoking in the public places is injurious to health of non – smokers and violating their right to life and liberty and hence it directed the Union of India, State Government, and the Union Territories to implement this ban in all the public places which include auditoriums, hospital buildings, health institutions, educational institutions, libraries, public offices, court buildings and public conveyances including railways.
• It can be observed from the current situation that due to cigarette smoking near about six lakhs deaths occur due to indirect smoke which enters the body through inhaling of intoxicating substances of smoke around their surroundings. There are several diseases such ulcer, stroke, mouth and throat cancer, larynx cancer, various heart diseases, pulmonary disease, bladder and cervical cancer which may be caused due to constant smoke[2].

Nevertheless, the question arises that – “When people know the dangers associated with the smoking, why do they still continue to smoke?” There are certain facts which could be observed in this respect.

• The main reason observed behind it was that the people start to smoke at a very early age, usually at the age of teens due to certain reasons which may include advertisements promoting cigarette smoking or even peer pressure may be one of the reasons why people continue to smoke.[3]
• Another reason observed is that young people smoke to look mature and to be like their friends or the adults who smoke around them. This type of doing the experiment in their lives becomes a habit which becomes a real difficult task to avoid.
• It is a very well observed fact of the human nature that anything restricted them to do, that work attracts them the most. Even after being restricted they try it and face the consequences of the same. It is known that cigarette smoking is prohibited according to law in certain countries for the teens below the age of 18 years but it could be observed after they were crossing the age of 18 in the due excitement they approach these substances and become additive to the same and further it becomes difficult for them to leave these addictive habits[4].

Besides the dangerous effects of cigarette smoking, the bitter truth is that the production of the cigar and tobacco substances will not stop as they the substances which are most profitable to the state. But it is on the people who smoke that they at earliest realize the ill effects of smoking and also smoking at the public places. The decision taken by the court in the following case was also correct as to avoid infringing the right to life and liberty of other people, banning smoking in public places is very necessary. Besides the contribution made by the government, it is very necessary that the people make the contribution at the individual level itself and then may be the rate of deaths may decline.

Click here

CONCLUSION

This case tells us that smoking in a public place should be banned because it pollutes air near them and also affects public health. Peoples mind need to change regarding pollution that they should take care of this environment. This case is regarding the environment and the public’s health which is being damaged by cigarette smoking. Public health play a critical role in promoting, restoring or maintaining the status of a country. The Right to Health is also infringed in cigarette smoking, it means non-smokers fundamental right to life in Article 21 is being infringed in this case, and fundamental right to life emphasize the value of human dignity, the Supreme Court began to address the importance of health as a fundamental right. The Court has shown that judges have enormous potential to effect change in society when they so desire, this has been proved in this following case. This case also tells us that there is the infringement of “social rights”- rights that protect the basic necessities of life or rights that provide for the foundation of an adequate quality of life.

Smoking is injurious to health and it affects the health of smokers but there is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. In any case, there is no reason to compel non-smokers to be helpless victims of air pollution. A non-smoker is affected by various diseases including lung cancer or of heart, only because he required to go to public places.

A country can develop more efficiently, if the condition of pollution in that country is very less. Young generations are the future of our country. So they should come forward to clean this environment and also make everyone aware of this. Some of the major activity should be performed on regular basis to make aware to the public regarding health and pollution, all public places should have lots of pamphlet of smoking injurious to health, do certain amount of fine or punishment or both on smoker who caught in smoking at public place, make people aware of the pollution affecting this environment, teach children’s that this environment is your first home so you have to clean this too not only your home, and there should be ban on selling of all types of tobacco product in country so that people say No to Smoking and Tobacco product. The health department, Municipal department, and Pollution department should be more active to take care of these all types of activity in the state.

At last, I would like to conclude by saying – “To look Smarter, Younger and Healthier, Burn Fat, not the Lungs.”

Citation – (AIR 2002 SC 40)

[1] Art. 21 of Constitution of India, 1949.

[2] Sumit Sehgal, smoking is injurious to health (March 17, 2006), http://ezinearticles.com/?Smoking-is-Injurious-to-Health&id=163531.

[3] Why do people still smoke cigarettes, http://wonderopolis.org/wonder/why-do-people-still-smoke-cigarettes?

[4] Why people smoke, http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/Unit3/1why_people_smoke.html.