The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to file a fresh petition with better particulars and dismissed the present PIL as withdrawn.
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a plea seeking a restriction or ban on the advertisement for non-vegetarian food in print and electronic media. The high court asked the petitioners why they were seeking to encroach on others’ rights.
After the Jain community petitioners sought to withdraw the plea in view of the past Supreme Court decisions, the division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J Jamdar allowed them to file a fresh petition with better particulars and dismissed the present PIL as withdrawn.
The high court said that the issue falls within the issue of the legislature, and it cannot frame rules and laws imposing bans. As soon as the petition came up for hearing, the bench clarified that the court can intervene only when rights are infringed.
The petition, filed by Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust, Sheth Motisha Religious and Charitable Trust, Shri Vardhaman Parivar, and Mumbai businessman Jyotindra Ramniklal Shah, stated that such promotions are a violation of the right to live in peace and the right to privacy. They also claimed their families, including children, are forced to watch such ads and these ads affect the minds of these children.
The PIL sought directions to respondents, including the State Government and its Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Press Council of India, Advertisement Standards Council of India, and private meat companies owning the brands like Licious.
On this, the court said: "What about violation of Article 19 of the Constitution? Why are you encroaching on others' rights? There are two ways of looking at it. An ordinary man would say switch off the TV. But we would look at it from the point of law. What you are asking has to be provided by law. Here there is no such law, which is why you are asking us to frame the law.”
The petitioners sought leave to amend their petition. However, the court said that on the very first day of the hearing they cannot seek time to amend and should have been better prepared. The court then allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea, stating that the petitioners can file a fresh petition if they so desire.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bombay High Court - File Photo")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}