The Centre has reportedly informed the Kerala High Court that it opposes the mandatory disclosure of nicotine and tar content on cigarette packets. According to reports from The Times of India and The Legal Affair, the government argues that such information could mislead consumers into believing that certain tobacco products are safer than others. The government's stance comes despite the provision requiring cigarette packs to mention the nicotine and tar content of each cigarette. During the latest hearing, Chief Justice Soumen Sen sought clarification regarding the Central Government's position on notifying the relevant provision of Section 7. In response, the Deputy Solicitor General informed the Court that after reconsidering the issue, the Government had decided not to alter its earlier stand, maintaining that disclosure of actual nicotine and tar values was not considered a desirable public health measure. The Centre filed an additional affidavit explaining why it did not consider disclosure of the actual numerical values of nicotine and tar to be an appropriate public health measure, as reported by The Legal Affair.
As reported by The Times of India and The Legal Affair, the provision requiring cigarette packs to mention nicotine and tar content has never been notified. This means the mandatory disclosure requirement has not been implemented, despite being included in the regulatory framework. The Deputy Solicitor General confirmed during the hearing that no legislative amendment had been made and that the existing statutory framework continued to remain in force. The matter arose in Sangeerthana M. and Others v. Union of India and Others (W.P.(C) No. 8332 of 2025) and was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. The petitioners argued that Section 7 specifically requires cigarette manufacturers to disclose nicotine and tar contents as well as the maximum permissible limits prescribed by the Central Government. Since the statutory provision had not been fully implemented, they argued that cigarette manufacturers were failing to comply with the legislative mandate.
According to the Centre's submission to the Kerala High Court, nicotine and tar account for only a fraction of the harmful substances present in tobacco smoke. As reported by The Times of India and The Legal Affair, the government maintains that these two components alone do not reflect the full health risks associated with tobacco use. The government argues that individuals may wrongly assume that cigarettes containing comparatively lower nicotine or tar levels are safer or less harmful than other products. The Deputy Solicitor General emphasized that such comparisons are scientifically inappropriate because all tobacco products are injurious to health irrespective of their numerical nicotine or tar content. The government contends that introducing numerical values may dilute the impact of existing pictorial health warnings by encouraging consumers to compare products instead of understanding that every cigarette poses serious health risks. The Centre emphasized that the existing pictorial warnings prescribed under the law effectively communicate the dangers associated with tobacco use, as reported by The Legal Affair.
The petitioners contended that the provisions of the COTPA were enacted to protect public health and ensure consumers receive adequate information regarding tobacco products. According to The Legal Affair, they argued that Section 7 specifically requires cigarette manufacturers to disclose nicotine and tar contents as well as the maximum permissible limits prescribed by the Central Government. Since the statutory provision had not been fully implemented, they argued that cigarette manufacturers were failing to comply with the legislative mandate. The petitioners further sought stricter enforcement of age restrictions on the sale of tobacco products by requesting directions that vendors verify identity cards before selling cigarettes or other tobacco products. They argued that effective implementation of these safeguards would help prevent access to tobacco products by minors and strengthen public health protection. The petitioners also sought action against cigarette manufacturers for allegedly failing to comply with Section 7 of the COTPA, as reported by The Legal Affair.
The matter arose in Sangeerthana M. and Others v. Union of India and Others (W.P.(C) No. 8332 of 2025) and was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. The Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking stronger implementation of tobacco control laws. After hearing the submissions, Chief Justice Sen orally observed that the Government's reasoning appeared to make sense in the context of public health policy. The Bench also sought clarification as to whether the statutory provision had been amended. The Deputy Solicitor General confirmed that no legislative amendment had been made and that the existing statutory framework continued to remain in force. As the first petitioner, who was appearing in person, was indisposed and unable to participate in the proceedings, the High Court did not proceed to decide the issues finally. Instead, the Division Bench adjourned the matter by three weeks to enable further hearing. The final decision of the Kerala High Court is expected to clarify the scope of the Government's obligations under Section 7 of the COTPA and the extent to which public health considerations may influence the implementation of statutory labeling requirements under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.
