In a recent update, the Bombay High Court rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the registration of a first information report (FIR) against celebrities who endorse tobacco and gutka products.

The Division Bench, headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor, explicitly remarked that the petitioner seemed more interested in seeking publicity than addressing the issue with the seriousness it warrants by involving various celebrities from different spheres of society.

The bench noted that the petition lacked sufficient details and failed to present appropriate requests. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of 'State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors,' the court reaffirmed the principle that "Courts should promote genuine and sincere public interest litigation while actively discouraging and preventing PILs filed for ulterior motives."

Yash Foundation, a non-governmental organization, had petitioned the High Court to initiate FIR proceedings against several celebrities under Sections 328 (administering poison) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as provisions of the Food Safety and Standards of India Act (FSSI Act), the Disaster Management Act of 2005, the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, and the Maharashtra Police Act of 1951. The organization alleged that these celebrities were engaged in surrogate advertisements for tobacco and gutka products.

Moreover, the petition emphasized the purported failure of police authorities to register FIRs against the accused celebrities. Nevertheless, the court noted that the petitioner's approach appeared to prioritize publicity over addressing the legal substance of the case.

The bench emphasised “the Court should also be dealing with frivolous PIL petitions being filed for extraneous reasons with firm hands and such attempts should be nipped in the bud.”

Advocate Rajesh Khobragade, representing the petitioner, had previously lodged complaints with multiple police stations in Mumbai. However, the court concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate any offenses committed by the accused parties.

As a result, when confronted with the court's scrutiny, the petitioners chose to withdraw their petition, a request that the division bench granted.

However, the court sternly warned the petitioners and said “we find it appropriate to caution the petitioner that in future if it files any PIL petition, it should first do the necessary study and homework and then only take up the petitions with appropriate and proper pleadings.”

Cause Title: Yash Foundation v. Union of India [ PIL No. NO. 23688 OF 2023]