Pakistan Case Law
1995 SCMR 202

AMANULLAH KHAN and anothers vs CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1995 SCMR 202
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.H.R.Case No, 101 of 1992
Date1994-02-23
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ., Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking a ban on cigarette commercials on television due to the public health hazards associated with smoking. The core legal question was whether the petition met the threshold requirements for the direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is strictly limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights contained in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution. The Court observed that Article 4(2)(a) does not fall within Chapter I of Part II, Article 25(1) was not impinged by television advertising, and Article 9, even if broadly construed to cover the quality of life, was not violated given the health warnings displayed after commercials. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution restricted strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights in Chapter I of Part II?
  • Can Article 4(2)(a) of the Constitution be directly enforced through an application under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does the broadcasting of commercial advertisements for cigarettes on television violate Article 9 or Article 25(1) of the Constitution where health warnings are simultaneously displayed?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 184(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Article 4(2)(a), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Article 25(1), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
original jurisdictionpublic interest litigationfundamental rightscigarette commercialstelevision advertisementsright to lifehealth hazard

ORDER

' SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. CI-This is an application under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The petitioner is aggrieved by the commercials which appear on behalf of the cigarette companies on the television. He seeks a direction for banning these commercials on the television. He states that the smoking habit has attained alarming proportions in Pakistan during the past two decades; as the western tobacco companies are unable to sell cigarettes in the western countries they are now aiming at the developing nations; unfortunately, unsuspecting people of Pakistan are falling prey to their advertising campaign which has already resulted in catastrophic calamities in the form of cancer and heart disease.

2. The petitioner is no doubt a public spirited man and his efforts to cut down the menace of smoking in our country are indeed laudable. However, the jurisdiction of this Court to directly entertain applications under Article 184(3), ibid, is of a limited scope inasmuch as it is confined to the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights set out in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution. On our inquiry the petitioner was unable to particularise the Fundamental Rights which he wanted to enforce through this petition. He made vague references to Articles 4(2)(a) and 25(1) of the Constitution. Article 4(2)(a) does not fall in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution and in so far as Article 25(1) is concerned that deals with the equality of the citizens before law. The advertising campaign of cigarette companies on the television seem hardly to impinge upon his right to equal treatment before law. The only Fundamental Right which can possibly have any relevance to his application is contained in Article 9 which states that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty save in accordance with law. There is a possible justification for constructing this Article in a manner which will embrace quality of life as well. But then it may be mentioned that after every commercial shown on the television relating to the promotion of cigarette a warning by the Ministry of Health with regard to the hazard of smoking is invariably displayed. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had attempted to run an anti-smoking campaign on the television on the same terms on which the cigarette manufacturing companies put on their commercials but he was denied the opportunity of doing so. This petition clearly does not fall within the restricted jurisdiction enjoyed by this Court under Article 184(3), ibid. In the circumstances, although we appreciate the efforts made by the petitioner for saving the nation from the hazards of smoking, we cannot issue an order to ban the commercial advertisements relating to smoking on the television for lack of jurisdiction. The application is dismissed.

Cited by 13 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.