New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, On January16, dismissed a petition seeking criminal action against Tamil actor Dhanush and the producers and distributors of the 2014 movie ‘Vela Illa Pattadhari’, under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA). The petition was based on allegations that the film’s posters, depicting the lead actor smoking, violated Section 5 of COTPA.
The apex court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, which had quashed the complaint filed by S. Cyril Alexander, State Convenor of the Tamil Nadu People’s Forum for Tobacco Control (TNPFTC). The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, concurred with the High Court’s view, stating,
“After all perusing from the copies of the advertisement, we find that the High Court is right in holding that Sub-section 1 of Section 5 of COTPA will not be applicable in the case.”
The complaint had targeted actor Dhanush, Wunderbar Film Pvt Ltd, Aishwarya Rajinikanth (producers), and certain theatre owners. It alleged that the film’s advertisement, showing the actor smoking, could influence adolescents, promoting smoking habits and adversely affecting the younger generation. The complainant argued that this constituted an offence under Section 5 of COTPA, punishable under Section 22 of the Act.
The High Court, in its judgment, clarified the scope of Section 5 of COTPA. It stated,
“In the instant case, the only allegation that has been made in the complaint is that the advertisement banners of the movie were found to carry the picture of the lead actor prominently smoking a cigarette. This act, per se, cannot be brought within the purview of Section 5 of the COTPA since the display was not done by persons engaged in the production, supply, or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products and the person, who was depicted as smoking a cigarette, was not under any contract with the entity or the person engaged in production, supply, or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products nor he was promoting their product.”
The High Court further noted the distinction between the movie business and the tobacco industry, stating,
“The complainant seemed to have been under the impression that since the producers and the distributors of the movie were engaged in erecting the banners/posters with the lead actor shown to have been smoking, the same would constitute an offence under Section 5 of the COTPA. The producers and the distributors in the present case are engaged in movie business and are not engaged in the business of cigarettes or other tobacco products. This vital distinction between what has been stated in the provision and what comes out of the allegations made in the complaint makes all the difference.”
Concurring with the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Crl.).
Case Name: S. CYRIL ALEXANDER vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY DR. V.K. PALANI Diary No.: 49498 – 2023
