The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the Central government's notification to impose a ban on smoking in public places from October 2.
A bench headed by Justice B N Agarwal, while refusing to stay the notification dated May 30, 2008, also transferred the four petitions, including one each filed by the ITC and the Indian Hotels Association, against it in the Delhi High Court.
'Smoking ban is a good beginning'
"We are of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of interim relief. The prayer staying implementation of prohibition of smoking in public places is rejected...let transfer cases be heard on November 18," the bench said.
The court also clarified that "no court in the country shall pass any order in derogation of this order."
While seeking vacation of the stay granted by the Madras High Court on the ban on smoking in public places, Additional Solicitor Generals Gopal Subramanium and Mohan Parasaran said that the people would suffer immensely and an irreparable loss and injury would be caused in case the notification was not implemented.
"The Act would not only discourage smoking in public places but would curtail passive smoking which is the cause of lung cancer...around one billion deaths are reported every year due to smoking," he said.
Supporting him, Indra Jaisingh, appearing for health organisations, said that the petitioners should comply with the such ban as such rules were being followed all over the world in public interest.
However, the tobacco manufacturers and hoteliers earlier strongly opposed the notification saying such a ban on smoking at workplace was unjustified as it would include private offices.
Stating that "the Rules go way beyond the Act," senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for ITC, said that the hotels were already complying with the earlier rules that made it mandatory for the hotels, having a seating capacity of 30 or more, should have separate smoking zones.
While partially supporting the ban, Salve said that the petitioners don't have any objection to such ban but the same should be applied discreetly.
They alleged that the notification made no distinction between private space and public space and the "Inspector Raj" is what may create the problem.
However, he objected to the enforcement of such ban in private offices like that of lawyers, architects, private clinics, etc and imposition of fine on persons incharge of these offices.
