Hookah Ban : Why Karnataka High Court Upheld:

·   The petitioners argued that the government’s notification violates the fundamental right to “practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business” guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g).

Court’s interpretation:

·    The court held that this freedom can be subject to certain reasonable restrictions including the prohibition of certain occupations, trades and businesses, if it is “in the general interest of the public”.

·   The court also held that a directive principle such as Article 47 can be used to justify a restriction on citizens’ rights under Article 19(1)(g).

·  Illegal ‘service’ under tobacco law COTPA:

·         Under Section 31 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA), the Centre can make further Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. In 2008, the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules were brought into force.

Rule 4(3) of COPTA:

·     After an amendment in 2017, states “No service shall be allowed in any smoking area or space provided for smoking”. The court asked whether hookah smoking “is plain smoking which can be permitted in a designated area or it is a product of service that needs to be rendered”.

·    To answer this question, the court compared hookah smoking to smoking a cigarette. It found that while “smoking zones created in designated places do not give any other service except creation of a smoking zone”, hookah smoking “needs rendering of services in the designated area, as it requires external human hand to place all the apparatus on the tables like food or alcohol .