Reference no: EM133296965

Case Study:- Ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India
On Feb 6, 2001 Government of India (GOI) dropped a bombshell on the Tobacco Industry when it announced that it would shortly table a bill banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. The objective of such a ban was to discourage adolescents from consuming tobacco products and also arm the Government with powers to launch an anti-Tobacco Program.
This decision seemed to have sparked an intense debate, not just over the ethical aspects of the Government's moral policing but also over the achievability of the objective itself. Reacting strongly against the proposed ban, Suhel Seth, CEO, Equus Advertising said, "The ban does not have teeth. It is a typical knee-jerk reaction by any Government to create some kind of popularity for itself.
The Legislation has not been thought thorough". In its reaction to the GOI's decision, ITC Ltd. announced that it would voluntarily withdraw from all of the sponsorship events, irrespective of the legal position on the subject.
In a statement, it said, "ITC believes that this action on its part will create the right climate for a constructive dialogue that will help develop appropriate content, rules & regulations to make the intended legislation equitable and implementable". The complexity of the issue was that the issue involved a tussle between ethical and commercial considerations. On the one hand, was tobacco, the most dangerous consumer product known, which killed when used as the makers' intended. Therefore, from an ethical standpoint, the Government had to discourage the habit, as it was responsible for the welfare of its citizens.
On the other hand, the tobacco Industry was a major contributor to the State Exchequer (In the Year 2000-01 it contributed about Rs. 8000 crores in excise revenue) which was extremely important, given the financial crunch which it faced. In light of the above statements, what approach should the government choose-the ethical or commercial and is it proper for the government to interfere in matters of personal choice in the first place? To make the matter more complex, there was the question- was the objective achievable at all, and was it equitable? The answers to these questions lay in understanding the viewpoints of both sides-those in favor and those against such bans.
The ban was not unusual keeping in view the international precedents. Countries like France, Finland, and Norway had already imposed similar bans. Advocates of free choice opposed to these bans, saying these amounted to unwarranted intrusion by the state in the private lives of its citizens. But, others pointed out that the state had the right to intervene in the overall interest of the citizens. They cited the example of drugs like cocaine, which was, banned the world over.
In 1981, the Supreme Court (of Appeal) in Belgium gave its ruling that a ban on tobacco advertising was not unconstitutional. In 1991 the French Constitutional Council declared that the French ban on advertising tobacco products was not unconstitutional as it was based on the need to protect public health and did not curtail the freedom of trade. There were many precedents of restrictions being imposed on the advertising of dangerous or potentially dangerous products even if these products remained in the market (e.g., firearms, and pharmaceutical Products).