The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a Madras High Court order that dismissed criminal proceedings against actor Dhanush and others in connection with posters for the 2014 Tamil film ‘Velaiyilla Pattathari,’ which depicted the actor smoking a cigarette.
A private complaint had been filed, asserting that the advertisement had either directly or indirectly endorsed or encouraged the use or consumption of cigarettes.
The plea challenging the high court’s July 10 order from last year was heard by a bench comprising justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
“After reviewing the copies of the advertisements, we are of the opinion that sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, was not applicable in this case. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed,” stated the bench in its order.
The complainant alleged that the accused had violated the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) (COTPA) Act, 2003.
In its order, the high court emphasized that a penal statute must be strictly construed as the consequences of an action taken under the statute could impact the life or personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Hence, the court cannot be swayed by emotions and popular beliefs, and the court has to necessarily construe the provisions strictly and see if the facts of the case make out an offence.
“If the facts do not constitute an offence, the court cannot try to expand the scope of the provision by considering the adverse impact that a tobacco or tobacco product can have on society and particularly the younger generation,” the high court articulated.
It noted that the complainant appeared to be under the impression that since the movie’s producers and distributors erected banners/posters depicting the lead actor smoking, it would constitute an offence under section 5 of the COTPA.
“The producers and the distributors in the present case are engaged in the 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,” it added, stating that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an “abuse of process of court.”
