Back in 2001 the Indian Government back in 2001 decided to enact a bill to ban smoking advertisements at sporting and cultural events in order to curtail adolescents from picking up the smoking habit. Opposition declared the government was overstepping their authority by infringing on citizen and business rights and the government felt it was excising its right to protect adolescents from acquiring a lethal habit.
Those in favor of the ban felt the Indian Government was looking out for its citizen’s health or best interest. The government‘s of Belgium and France won tobacco advertising ban challenges in constitutional court back in the 80’s and 90’s based on the premise that they were protecting the public health not prohibiting the right to due business. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) tobacco related deaths would reach 10 million by 2030 for an annual increase 6 million since 1998.
The Indian…show more content… They were offended that the government thought their people couldn’t make their own decisions and thus lose another right to the government and on the way to a limited freedom of choice. The opposing parties declared that banning advertising to a legally produced product was restricting free trade. Tobacco companies claimed that advertising wasn’t to enlist smokers but only a tool used to assist adults in making a brand choice in order to increase market share with existing smokers. Naysayers used a 1998 poll, conducted by the Indian Market Research Bureau that declared smokers weren’t induced to smoke from advertisements. Further questions were raised as to why this ban was being enacted on the organized cigarette industry which maintained 16% of all smoking in Indian society. While the larger market share of smokers at 84% consisted of beedi and ghutkas and were proven more harmful. If anything they felt this would slow the transition to less harmful smoker