Professor Nurul Islam Vs Bangladesh

52, DLR, 2000, 413

Fact in brief:

The petitioner sought a mandamus compelling the government to enforce the provisions of the

Tobacco related Goods Marketing (control) Act, 1988 to ensure that the restriction regarding the

advertisement of cigarettes be observed strictly. All the tobacco related companies were

advertising their products in different spheres of media violating section 5 (2) of the Ain which

made compulsory of writing warning on a prominent part of the advertisement in so small size

that it was barely readable. This caused promotional advertisement through ‘Voyage of

Discovery’ in order to discover new and potential victims of tobacco products by popularizing

the ‘Gold Leaf’ cigarettes by British America Tobacco Company.

Issues:

1) Whether the advertisements violated right to life as incorporated into Articles 31, 32 of

our constitution or not?

2) Whether there is any ‘Locus Standi’ in the case or not?

Rules of Law:

Articles 25 (1), 31, 32, of the constitution read with section 3 of the Tobacco related Goods

Marketing (control) Act, 1988.

Decision:

Advertisement in any form, of cigarettes or tobacco related products must not be continued in

any manner beyond the period of the existing contract with the manufacturers or other agents.

Reasoning of the decision:

The advertisements violate Article 18. Because the Article states that state shall adopt effective

measures to prevent consumption of alcoholic and other intoxicating drinks, drugs etc except for

medical purposes prescribed by law. As the advertisement was not for the medical or purposes

prescribed by law, it violates Article 18.

The state has a duty to all citizens to provide with the right to life as in Article 31. No action

detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation property shall be taken except in accordance with

law. Through the advertisement, the illiterate people and especially the young generation are

influenced. And they will have large possibilities to become addicted and by the means innocent

people’s right to life will be violated. Right to life means right to sound, healthy and wealthy life.

Articles 31 and 32 of the constitution provides not only for means to protect life and limbs but

Partial preview of the text

Download Professor Nurul Islam CAse and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Professor Nurul Islam Vs Bangladesh 52, DLR, 2000, 413 Fact in brief: The petitioner sought a mandamus compelling the government to enforce the provisions of the Tobacco related Goods Marketing (control) Act, 1988 to ensure that the restriction regarding the advertisement of cigarettes be observed strictly. All the tobacco related companies were advertising their products in different spheres of media violating section 5 (2) of the Ain which made compulsory of writing warning on a prominent part of the advertisement in so small size that it was barely readable. This caused promotional advertisement through ‘Voyage of Discovery’ in order to discover new and potential victims of tobacco products by popularizing the ‘Gold Leaf’ cigarettes by British America Tobacco Company. Issues:

Whether the advertisements violated right to life as incorporated into Articles 31, 32 of our constitution or not?
Whether there is any ‘Locus Standi’ in the case or not? Rules of Law: Articles 25 (1), 31, 32, of the constitution read with section 3 of the Tobacco related Goods Marketing (control) Act, 1988. Decision: Advertisement in any form, of cigarettes or tobacco related products must not be continued in any manner beyond the period of the existing contract with the manufacturers or other agents. Reasoning of the decision: The advertisements violate Article 18. Because the Article states that state shall adopt effective measures to prevent consumption of alcoholic and other intoxicating drinks, drugs etc except for medical purposes prescribed by law. As the advertisement was not for the medical or purposes prescribed by law, it violates Article 18. The state has a duty to all citizens to provide with the right to life as in Article 31. No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation property shall be taken except in accordance with law. Through the advertisement, the illiterate people and especially the young generation are influenced. And they will have large possibilities to become addicted and by the means innocent people’s right to life will be violated. Right to life means right to sound, healthy and wealthy life. Articles 31 and 32 of the constitution provides not only for means to protect life and limbs but

also everything necessary for enjoyment of life. Protection of health and longevity is included within these rights. The petitioners are registered societies whose functions were to work for the health of the people by activity engaging them in creating awareness among the masses against disease and to propagate methods by which diseases and aliments could be prevented by taking precautions. Any wrong doing or invasion of public rights against the aims and objects of such societies does clothe them with the necessary Locus Standi to move the courts of law. So the petitioner had Locus Standi under Article 102. Arguments on behalf of the parties: For the petitioner:  Barrister Omar Sadat appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied on Article 11 of the constitution. He argued that there should be a total prohibition on advertisement of tobacco goods in all media.  Article 11 deals with democracy in which also fundamental human rights and freedoms and respect for the dignity and worth of the human being are also guaranteed. The marketing and consumption of tobacco is against the spirit of the article.  The authority not only has a duty to prevent production of tobacco related products but while marketing the same has a duty to enforce the prevailing law.  Article 25(1) of the constitution casts an obligation upon the state to show respect for international law and the principles enunciated in the United Nations charter and WHO resolution. The advertisements have also violated international law. For the Respondents:  Barrister Nazmul Huda appearing on behalf of Gold Leaf argued that though the voyage was promotional move, it had nothing to do with the marketing and commercial activities of Gold Leaf and in attracting the consumers to tobacco related products. Conclusion: That the right to life also includes right to health and longevity was made clear in this case. There are many things beyond material life which are included within the ambit of article 32.

Professor Nurul Islam CAse, Summaries of Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Professor Nurul Islam CAse and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!