MAHESH BHATT Vs. KASTURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset, we begin with the Caveat, which is almost universal whenever constitutional validity of a legislation is challenged, while deciding the question of constitutional validity, we do not pronounce judgment on whether the impugned legislation is desirable and should have been enacted. A legislation may be constitutional, yet it may not be desirable [denis versus u. S. reported in (1950) 341 U. S. 492].

(2.) THE present Writ Petitions challenge the legality and validity of some of the provisions of the the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and the amended Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prevention of Advertisements and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution)Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short ). It may be noted that Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 18761/2005 and 23716/2005 titled Mahesh bhatt versus Union of India was filed in this Court, while other two Writ petition (Civil) Nos. 7410-11/2006 titled Kasturi and sons versus Union of India and another were initially filed in Madras High Court but later on transferred to this Court, by Order dated 27th March, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 18761/2005 and 23716/2005 is a reputed Writer, Director and Producer of films and television programmes. The Writ Petitioner in the other two petitions is engaged in publication of the newspaper 'the Hindu'. Both the petitioners claim that the amended Rules violate freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution of India and are not protected under Article 19 (2 ). It is the contention of the petitioners that if the amended Rules are upheld, they will gag and stifle the film, electronic and print media from expressing themselves and curtail their freedom to communicate, inform public and portray society as it actually exists. Considerable emphasis is placed upon the fact that business and use of tobacco is legal and is not res extra commercium. Learned counsel appearing for Kasturi and Sons had submitted that the restrictions and prohibitions under the Act and as envisaged by the amended Rules would prevent the print media from even disseminating news in public interest and therefore violate the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by the constitution. It was urged that the said legislations are not reasonable. The legal contentions and issues raised by the parties have been dealt with and examined by us while giving our reasoning. The respondents, on the other hand, had drawn our attention to the object and purpose behind the amendments, the reason and cause why the Act was enacted. It was accordingly submitted that the rules as framed are constitutionally valid and Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution is not violated. To avoid prolixity, we are not reproducing in detail the legal contentions and the issues raised separately.