PROFESSOR NURUL ISLAM VS BANGLADESH 52 DLR 2000

 

 Analysis of the Fact:

Professor Nurul Islam, the president of ADHUNIK stated that at the present moment all the tobacco related companies were advertising their products in different spheres of media such as newspapers, magazines, televisions, radios, billboards and various kinds of sponsorship of cultural and sports program me. They were violating sections 3(1) and 3(2) of Tamakjato Shamogri Biponon Niyontroner Jonno Pronito Ain. Most of the tobacco related companies had printed the said statutory warning on the packets and containers and also broadcast and published their advertisements but they were committing fraud by not following law accurately because they had been printing the statutory warning on corners of tobacco packets in a so small size that it was not readable properly. 

Rule nisi issued in this writ petition:

Why the promotional advertisement activities through “Voyage of Discovery” in order to discover new and potential victims of tobacco products by popularizing the Gold Leaf Cigarette should not be declared to have been made illegal and without lawful authority. 

Argument from the Appellant:

It was argued that

Ø  Article 11 of our Constitution ensures that the Republic shall be a democracy in which fundamental human rights and freedom and respect for dignity and worth of human person shall be guaranteed. The marketing and consumption of the tobacco not only helps robbing of dignity but also addiction to tobacco has the effect of worsening the worth of a human person. So the state has a responsibility to persuade and protect the dignity and worth of person and to restrict the business of tobacco related products and by phases should close down the production of tobacco and tobacco related products including cigarettes. 

Ø  The foreign tobacco related products that are being imported to the country did not contain such statutory warning contemplated by law but section 2(2) and 3 of the Ordinance no. 26 of 1988 has prohibited any advertisement, promotion of making cigarette related products without the statutory warning.

Ø  British American Tobacco Company having failed to promote its production in developing countries had undertaken the Voyage of Discovery in order to promote their Gold Leaf Cigarette particularly among the illiterate backward people of Africa and Asia.

Ø  The smoking of tobacco related products not only affect the smokers but also the surrounding individuals.

Ø  Though Government had promulgated ordinance no.16 of 1990 but unfortunately that was not placed before the Parliament and ultimately died a natural death not having been placed as per Article 93(2) of our Constitution.

Argument from the Respondent:

It was argued that

Ø  Although Voyage of Discovery was designated for promotional activities but had nothing to do with the marketing and commercial activity of Gold Leaf Cigarette and there was no restriction for Voyage of Discovery to be present in Bangladesh in order to facilitate visits of the visitors.

Ø  The consumers having been made aware of the effect of consuming tobacco related products by the way of statutory warning under the provision of law. So, no further restriction was required to prevent consumption of cigarettes related products and manufacturers had the right to continue with their business.

Ø  The ordinance regarding the advertisement had been allowed to be lapsed not placing before the parliament. But when occasion shall arise the Government may restrict the advertisement of cigarette related products in public interest.

Decision:

Voyage of Discovery should not be promoted in order to advertise Gold Leaf of British American Tobacco and the authorities were directed that advertisement in any form of cigarette, beedi, tobacco related products must not be continued in newspapers, magazines, signboards or in any media.

Reasoning behind the decision:

The above decision was taken on the grounds that Voyage of Discovery and all other advertisements related to cigarette, beedi and other tobacco related products were creating havoc in the country by encouraging and popularizing smoking habits among the youth. Smoking and taking tobacco related products were very much dangerous for health which hampered the right to life under article 31 and 32 which say about protection of the right to life and personal liberty and article 18 which says about providing for improvement of the quality of public health, nutrition and taking effective measures to prevent consumption of intoxicating, tobacco related products and also the mandate of article that says for the dignity and worth of human person.

 

Principle:

The principle came out of this case is that any wrong doing or invasion of public rights against the aims and objectives of the society does clothe a person with conscience with the necessary locus standi to move to the court under article 102(1) of the Constitution and Life within the meaning of article 32 of our constitution does not mean only to vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death rather it means all such amenities and facilities for a person to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionality.

Importance of the case:

This is one of the landmark cases in the judicial history of Bangladesh where some constitutional terms like aggrieved person under article 102(2), locus standi, right to life under article 31 and 32 were discussed. The court in this case referred article 18 and 11 though they are not judicially enforceable but court said that state was bound to fulfill the principles under those articles. In this case another important side was the reference of international laws, which promulgations and UN Charter to make its judgment enriched with materials.