Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.62 seconds)
Rajasimhan vs Union Of India on 13 October, 2025 cites

K. A. Abbas vs The Union Of India & Anr on 24 September, 1970

9. Respondent No. 4, the publisher of the Book, has taken serious objection to the suppression and lack of due diligence by the Petitioner in WP(PIL) No.117/2025 -:8:- 2025:KER:75638 failing to disclose the presence of a disclaimer on the Book, which states that the depiction is not intended to promote smoking. Respondent No.4 submitted that, with reference to the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2004, the Petitioner has wrongly stated in paragraph 15 of the petition that depictions of smoking in films, television, and media are required to carry statutory health warnings. The insertion of the word "print" in this context is erroneous, as no such requirement exists. It was further contended that the Petitioner has not complied with Rule 146AD of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, which mandates disclosure as to whether the Petitioner has approached the competent authority for redressal of the grievance before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent No.4 argued that a plain reading of Section 7 of the Act of 2003 shows that it applies only to persons engaged in the production, supply, and distribution of cigarettes, and that the statutory warning referred to therein is required to be placed on the packets of cigarettes and other tobacco products. There is no provision under the Act of 2003 or the Rules of 2004 mandating such warnings on images, pictures, or photographs. Respondent No.4 reiterated that Section 5 focuses solely on the prohibition of advertisements of cigarettes and that images or depictions such as those on a book cover are not covered under the Act of 2003, yet Respondent No.4 has volunteered to place a disclaimer in the Book. Respondent No.4 has relied upon the decisions in the cases of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India1, Mahesh Bhatt v.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 112 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

K.Ramanathan vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 27 February, 1985

1 (1970) 2 SCC 780 WP(PIL) No.117/2025 -:9:- 2025:KER:75638 Union of India2, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India3, and Ramanathan v. State4. Respondent No.4 further contended that the book cover is an integral and inseparable part of the book, and that the Petitioner cannot, by selectively interpreting the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2004 to suit his contentions, seek to infringe the fundamental rights of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.4 has also annexed to its counter affidavit several photographs, book covers, and materials from the print media illustrating depictions of persons smoking. According to Respondent No.4, this petition is merely an attempt to gain cheap publicity and ought to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 142 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next