Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, has proposed an Amendment Bill to the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade & Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act, 2003. Among the many proposed changes is a proposed fine of ₹ 1000 (instead of the existing fine of ₹ 200) if one smokes in public places. The existing provision of a separate “smoking area” in hotels and restaurants is proposed to be done away with. Likewise, there are other significant changes suggested, such as raising the minimum age of a person buying tobacco products to 21 years from existing 18 years and ban on sale of loose cigarettes.
Section 4 of the existing Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade & Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act, 2003, lays down that no person shall smoke in a public place; however, an exception has been made in a hotel having thirty rooms or a restaurant having seating capacity of thirty persons or more and in the airports, where a separate provision for smoking area or space may be made. But, the proposed amendment in the said Act does away with the exemption given to separate “smoking area” in hotels and restaurants. So, if this amendment is finally cleared by the Parliament, it would not be possible to earmark separate “smoking areas” in hotels and restaurants, though the exemption for the airports will still continue with some changes.
Definition of “public place” has also been proposed to be made much wider with inclusion of new places like Railway Stations, bus stops, work places, parks within its mischief. Moreover, the earlier definition of “public place” included a general expression, viz. “and the like which are visited by general public but does not include any open space”; now, the proposed amendment removes the words “but does not include any open space” from this expression. Thus, under the proposed amendment, any open space which is visited by general public will also be covered within the definition of “public place” where smoking is banned.
Other proposed changes in law include special session courts for the trial of offences under the said Act. The new Bill also proposes ban on spitting of tobacco products in public, in view of the fact that it is one of the biggest causes of spread of infectious diseases like TB, pneumonia, swine flu and avian flu.
The proposed amendment also makes stringent provisions for banning any form of surrogate advertisements for tobacco products, since the existing Act was vague in respect of advertisements due to which there have been widespread surrogate advertisements for the tobacco products. In fact, the Bill also talks of a need to plug the reality of potential misuse of the Corporate Social Responsibility activities by tobacco companies to indirectly promote or advertise tobacco products.
It is pertinent to point out that at this stage, these are merely proposed changes in the above law. In fact, the Tobacco Control Division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, has called for views / comments from member of public on these proposed changes vide its Public Notice dated 13 January 2015, which has been put on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (see here).
You can send your own views or comments on these proposed changes to the Under Secretary (Tobacco Control), Department of Health and Family Welfare, Room No. 425 ‘C’, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011, or email them at ntcp.mohfw@gmail.com on or before 15 February 2015.
One has to wait and see what specific changes are included in the Amendment Bill that is finally presented to the Parliament and what specific changes are ultimately approved by the Parliament.
Moreover, implementation of the provisions banning cigarettes and tobacco products continues to be a big challenge. For example, it is unfortunate that one has often seen that even within the premises of courts, which are under continuous CCTV watch, even advocates in their advocate robes can be often seen smoking with no fear of getting caught while violating this law. One wonders how such cigarettes could be “smuggled” inside such Court premises despite there being thorough security checks. If this is the position of the implementation of legal ban on smoking in public places in the premises of courts which are responsible for upholding the rule of law, then one shudders to think what would be the position in other positions, specially in smaller towns and villages.
