Introduction:

In a significant legal battle, the Karnataka High Court delves into the complexities surrounding the state government’s notification banning the sale, consumption, storage, advertisement, and promotion of all types of hookah products within Karnataka. The Advocate General, K Shashi Kiran Shetty, contends that the ban is a crucial step in safeguarding public health, exercised under Article 47 of the Constitution. On the other side, petitioners argue that the ban infringes upon their business rights, challenging the constitutionality of the notification. The court, led by Justice M Nagaprasanna, grapples with questions about the competence of the state government to issue the ban, the impact on non-tobacco hookah, and the balance between public health and individual rights.

Arguments:

The state argues that the ban is a proactive measure in the interest of public health and emphasizes the lack of designated areas for serving hookah, leading to potential health risks. The state asserts its competence to issue the notification, even when a bill to regulate hookah is pending assent. The petitioners counter, invoking the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (COTPA) Act, highlighting the provision for separate designated areas for smoking. They question the validity of the ban, especially for herbal hookah, which lacks tobacco or nicotine.

Court’s Judgement:

The court grills the state on its approach to regulate non-tobacco hookah and the potential dilution of legal provisions. The state argues for prohibition rather than regulation, citing precedents in other states. The court acknowledges the importance of health but seeks clarity on the necessity of a blanket ban. The petitioners argue that the COTPA Act is comprehensive and allows for regulated hookah smoking in designated areas, ensuring compliance. They challenge the ban’s constitutionality, asserting violations of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) related to equality and the right to carry out business.