Today, the Counsel for the Tobacco Institute of India commenced his arguments. He mainly argued that there was lack of adherence to pre-consultative and procedural processes for bringing the impugned Rules into force.
Day 10 saw the Counsel for the Tobacco Institute of India continue his arguments, challenging the 2014 Amendment Rules as being arbitrary and ultra vires the parent Act.
On Day 9, the Counsel for the Tobacco Institute of India continued his arguments. The arguments focused on the 2014 Rules. Citing Rule 3(1)(b) juxtaposed with Section 7(4) read with Section 20 of COTPA, the Counsel argued that the Rules had the effect of amending Section 7(4).
On Day 8, the Counsel for the Tobacco Institute of India continued with his submissions. He indicated, at first, that an independent argument would be made by the Petitioners for the Beedi Manufacturers Association, on Article 19 (1) (g), relating to the freedom of trade.
Day 7 saw the continuation of arguments by the Counsel for the Tobacco Institute of India, which focused on Article 21 and whether the 2014 Rules exceed its mandate as against the provisions of the parent Act, namely COTPA.
The hearing before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court continued on Day 5 as the counsel for the Tobacco Institute of India cited decisions of the Indian and the US Supreme Courts, in support of the existence of a right to commercial speech within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a). The arguments on this day, focused mainly on proving that the petitioner’s right to commercial speech is being curtailed by the impugned rules notified by the Government which excessively restrict the ability to advertise on the packaging of tobacco products.
In the judgment of Diamond Enterprises vs. State of Karnataka, dated September 9, 2015, the High…