SC refuses to entertain PIL seeking health warnings on liquor bottles

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 23) refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction to government authorities to ensure health warnings on liquor bottles like for tobacco products, saying the courts would not interfere in policy matters.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and justices Indira Banerjee and S Ravindra Bhat said such decisions fall under the policy-making domain of the government.

“Liquor is 10 times more harmful than cigarettes. Health warnings on cigarette packets were made mandatory by court orders and the same direction can be passed here also,” PIL petitioner and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay said.

Also read: Supreme Court pulls up Baba Ramdev for his remarks against allopathy

“These all are policy matters. The courts cannot interfere in these matters,” the bench said in the order.

The bench said in the case of liquor, there have been some suggestions that it is good for health if taken in some moderation.

Besides seeking health warnings, the PIL has also sought a direction that, like EIA (environmental impact assessment), which is mandatory for developmental projects having an impact on the environment, the health impact assessment (HIA) of products be made mandatory before declaring them fit for human consumption.

Also read: Arunachal Pradesh Cabinet increases excise duty on liquor by 15%

Earlier in July, the Delhi High Court had observed that all liquor bottles already contain health warning signs as per specifications provided under excise rules and it cannot be done on wishes of an individual.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Subramonium Prasad said the statute is there and everyone has to follow the same.

Also read: BCCI is a ‘shop’, provisions of ESI Act applicable: Supreme Court

“What your prayer is, is already in excise rules. I have gone through the excise rules and I am told that every (liquor) bottle has this warning. All the specifications are provided under rules. The statute is there and everyone has to follow the statute. It is not that I feel it should be in bold letters so it should be like that,” the bench said.

The court was hearing a PIL seeking direction to the government to publish ‘health warning’ on liquor bottles and packages, similar to the warning sign used on cigarette packets.

(With Agency inputs)