A police reply to a Right to Information application, with details of penalties recovered, carried weight with the Kerala High Court as it directed the police to strictly enforce the public smoking ban and ordered awareness programmes on the legal prohibition and the harms of passive smoking.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ernakulam: Disposing of a public interest petition on Wednesday that sought effective enforcement of the prohibition on smoking in public places, the Kerala High Court directed the police to strictly enforce the statute and the authorities to conduct awareness programmes on the legal provisions and the harmful effects of passive smoking [Prof. Monamma Kokkad v. State of Kerala and Others].
The order of October 7, 2026 came from a Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., with the judgment authored by the Chief Justice.
The police reply on record
The petitioner had disclosed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act to the State Police Chief and the reply she received. According to the Bench, the reply showed that the Kerala Police had taken adequate measures to implement the Act of 2016 and had furnished details of the penalties recovered for violations. On that material, the Bench declined to find that enforcement had broken down, observing:
“In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the police have not taken adequate measures for the implementation of the Act of 2016. A few isolated incidents may not justify a finding that the provisions of the Act of 2016 have not been complied with.”
Even so, the Court made clear that the police must continue to enforce the law:
“Needless to say, the police shall continue to comply with the directions issued in K. Ramakrishnan (supra), and strictly enforce the provisions of the Act of 2016.”
What the petition sought
Filed by Kochi resident Prof. Monamma Kokkad, the petition asked for enforcement of the statutory bar on smoking in public places. She relied on the High Court’s earlier judgment in K. Ramakrishnan and Another v. State of Kerala and submitted that the directions in that ruling had not been fully implemented.
She referred to a representation dated August 8, 2026 to the Home Secretary seeking statewide implementation of that judgment and strict enforcement of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2016 (the Act of 2016, as the order terms it) and the Rules framed under it. She also suggested that the penalty for violations be enhanced.
The directions
A copy of the order is to go to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely the Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Health and Family Welfare), the Principal Secretary to Government (Local Self Government) and the State Police Chief, for information and compliance.
The Court further ordered:
“The respondent authorities shall conduct awareness programmes highlighting the legal provisions prohibiting smoking in public places and the harmful effects of passive smoking.”
The writ petition (public interest litigation) was accordingly disposed of. The Bench did not order any change in the penalty prescribed for violations.
Why the order matters
The order shows the Court weighing the State’s own enforcement record against a general complaint of lax implementation. Relying on the police’s disclosed enforcement data, it refused to record a finding of non-compliance, while still turning the earlier directions in K. Ramakrishnan into a fresh, express command to the police.
By directing the health, local self government and police departments to run awareness programmes on the prohibition and on passive smoking, the Bench has placed a continuing public-education duty on the State alongside penal enforcement.
Case Title: Prof. Monamma Kokkad v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(PIL) No. 195 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Harish Vasudevan, Rajan Vishnuraj, Varun Jacob and Aashka Ann for the petitioner; Biju Meenattoor, Senior Government Pleader, for the State