Dr. AMANULLAH KHAN and anothers vs CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL RESEARCH
This matter originated as a petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a judicial direction to ban television commercials promoting cigarettes. The petitioner contended that such advertising campaigns were contributing to the alarming rise of smoking-related health issues, such as cancer and heart disease, in Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court possesses the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to issue such a directive. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is strictly limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Constitution. The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the advertisements violated any specific Fundamental Right. While acknowledging the potential argument that Article 9 (right to life and liberty) could encompass the quality of life, the Court noted that the government already mandates health warnings on such advertisements. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the petition, emphasizing the restricted scope of its original jurisdiction.
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to ban commercial advertisements on television?
- Is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights contained in Chapter 1 of Part 2?
- Does the broadcasting of cigarette advertisements on television violate the Fundamental Right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution?
- Article 4(2)(a), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 25(1), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 184(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.---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 1 of Part 2 of the Constitution. On our inquiry the petitioner was unable to particularize 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 1 of Part 2 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 1 case
- AL-JEHAD TRUST Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1997 PLD 84