LI Network
Published on: December 05, 2023 at 12:20 IST
The Delhi High Court expressed disapproval of a young lawyer who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the display of anti-tobacco advertisements containing “graphic or gross images” during screenings in cinemas, on television, or on OTT platforms.
The PIL had been previously dismissed by a single judge who labeled it as “sponsored litigation.” Subsequently, the lawyer approached a division bench to challenge the initial decision.
During the hearing to contest the single judge’s order, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna conveyed their dissatisfaction, stating that the lawyer requires a “course correction” and emphasized that the content in the advertisements reflects “actual reality.“
The bench, addressing the senior counsel representing the lawyer, remarked, “Let’s circulate some IQ to everyone… Do not argue too much. This is a matter that calls for a firm hand to be used. It is an absolute misuse of PIL to the core, and that too by a lawyer. He needs a course correction.”
Additionally, the bench cautioned about the potential consequences for the lawyer’s future, stating, “If this is the path he intends to follow in the future, then it is not a good future for him. We are speaking our mind candidly.”
The court directed the lawyer to submit an affidavit of regret within two days, after which the observations made by the single judge would be expunged. The bench concurred with the single judge’s view that the PIL was a “sponsored litigation.”
“He must give an affidavit of regret, and then we will expunge the observations. Absolute regret is required in this matter. The Government of India is trying to do something… This, no doubt, is a sponsored litigation… Since he is a member of the bar, let him express regret. Come back in two days,” the bench stated.
The court also engaged with the lawyer, advising a course correction and emphasizing that the depicted content in the advertisements reflects actual reality.
“Please have a course correction. It is not proper too early in the day to start like this… What they are showing is actual reality,” the bench advised the lawyer.
The next hearing for the case is scheduled for December 7. In the previous dismissal of the PIL, Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that the graphic descriptions in government-issued advertisements aim to be “eye-openers for the people,” serving public interest by discouraging the use of tobacco and related products.
The court deemed the plea a gross misuse of the legal process and refrained from making comments that might affect the lawyer’s future.