During hearings, the Court had observed that the root of the case before it concerned whether the State had the competence to issue a blanket ban on hookah.
Appearing for a petitioner, Senior Advocate K Suman asserted that the State does not have any such power. More so since a Central government legislation, namely the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 2003 (COTPA), already held the field.
The COTPA, Suman had argued, permitted smoking in designated areas, where food is not served.
This stance was refuted by the State government represented by Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, who asserted that the COTPA only deals with cigarettes and not hookah.
He argued that the State, on the other hand, has the power to impose a ban in the interest of public health. Public health is a subject in Entry 6, List II (containing a list of subjects on which States can legislate) of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, he pointed out.
He added that the State government also had an obligation to carry out measures to promote public health according to Article 47 of the Constitution.
Source: Barandbench
