Announcing an immediate ban on e-cigarettes on September 18, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said their use has become a “style statement” and the Indian government wants to stop the contagion before it spreads. When it comes to regulating traditional tobacco products, though, the authorities appear to be having a hard time.

Case in point: the Delhi Health Services’ running feud with The Times of India over tobacco advertising. 

Starting in 2017, SK Arora, additional director with Delhi’s Directorate General of Health Services, sent a series of showcause notices to the newspaper for carrying advertisements of tobacco and pan masala products. The newspaper responded to the individual notices but because they were “unsatisfactory” in Arora’s opinion and the advertisements continued, Arora took the issue to the Press Council of India in 2018. 

Arora filed his complaint against TOI with the PCI on November 26, 2018, citing an advertisement promoting Rajnigandha tobacco and pan masala on the front page of its New Delhi edition on February 27, 2018. The complaint mentioned the previous showcause notices Arora had filed against TOI for carrying similar advertisements. 

One of these notices was sent in November 2017 for allegedly promoting Rajnigandha tobacco pan masala at the Times Lit Fest in New Delhi, describing the act as a “clear violation of Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003”. The Act prohibits any direct or indirect advertisements of cigarettes and other products that contain tobacco.

“A literature festival is mostly attended by school children and young adults and any immature minds in that fest will accept Rajnigandha Tobacco/Pan Masala as a good product,” the notice read. “Then, where is the need for teaching values to our children if they will not survive to adulthood and start consuming pan masala/tobacco? The impact of such promotion by such prestigious media organisation has a disastrous impact on the society.”

A Rajnigandha advertisement at Times Lit Fest.

Arora told Newslaundry the legality of carrying the advertisements was questionable. “At Times Lit Fest, the brand Rajnigandha was advertised without any mention of its products, although under trademark registration this brand is registered as a Tobacco and Pan Masala Brand,” he said. “Blind promotions of brands are strategies of these companies to create confusion and try to get away from the punishment of violations. If this brand was being promoted as tobacco, then it would have been a direct advertisement of tobacco and a violation of Section 5 of the COTPA. If it was pan masala, then it would have been a violation of Section 5 of COTPA as it becomes a surrogate advertisement of tobacco and also a violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act…under which pan masala can’t be advertised without warning.” 

The warning in question — “pan masala consumption is injurious to health” —  was missing from the advertisement.

TOI responded to Arora on November 28, 2018: “It is wrong to suggest that immature minds of school-going children/youngsters will accept this as an acceptable good on account of strategic display of the said advertisement at the literature festival,” the newspaper wrote. “There is no reference of tobacco here so no negative impact could be made on young children or anyone else.”

The newspaper emphasised that it had not violated Section 5 of the COTPA: “Rajnigandha is not a cigarette or tobacco product so the question of violation does not arise. We have asked and checked with the Rajnigandha to make it clear whether they have any tobacco product in the name of Rajnigandha and only after getting confirmation from their end that no such product exists, we agreed to allow them to advertise with us.” 

Arora disagreed with TOI’s assessment. “I have submitted the documents to the PCI which clearly states that Rajnigandha is a registered tobacco company trademark registration under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India,” he told Newslaundry. 

Arora sent another showcause notice to TOI over an article published on the front page of Times Life (a supplement of the newspaper’s Sunday edition) on November 26, 2017. Listing “cool Instagram trends” for wedding, the article was accompanied by a photograph of a bride smoking hookah at her pre-wedding party. Arora’s notice, dated the same day, said the story not only promoted smoking hookah but described it as a “social norm and trendsetter”. Arora told Newslaundry this could “attract youngsters” to smoking which will “destroy the younger generation”. 

TOI responded to the showcause notice on May 9, 2019: “The newspaper carries an article on lifestyles, socialization patterns, culture, fashion and trends prevalent in the society. Kindly appreciate that there is no bar on editorial to write on tobacco or tobacco product as COTPA bars publication of advertisement of tobacco product brands. It is wrong to suggest that when a newspaper writes news on a particular subject or product the newspaper is promoting that product. The company has in its newspaper raised issues concerning the common people and for the welfare and benefits of the society.” 

Arora dispatched two more showcause notices to TOI in 2017. The first was for “promoting” a product called “NicoMeltz”. According to its website, NicoMeltz is a “nicotine release strip that instantly melts in your mouth and calms your craving for a smoke”. Arora called the advertisement a form of surrogate advertising of tobacco and a violation of COTPA. TOI responded that NicoMeltz “is not a cigarette or tobacco product; rather it helps in quitting the habit of smoking so the question of Section 5 of COTPA does not arise”. The second notice was over an advertisement for Vimal Elaichi.  

In 2018, Arora sent TOI yet another notice for advertising Rajnigandha at the 2018 edition of its literature fest. Arora told Newslaundry that despite receiving a notice for advertising Rajnigandha at their 2017 lit festival, TOI did the same at the 2018 event. He said, “This clearly shows a negative attitude of TOI towards government law and public health. The matter in the previous case is under process at the level of appropriate enforcement agency.”

Arora’s complaint with the PCI noted: “Since it is a repetitive offence and the quantum of the punishment increases on repeating an offence…Under Section 22 of COTPA 2003 for repeating an offence under Section 5 of the same act, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.” 

The PCI has held three hearings on Arora’s complaint so far, on March 29, August 20 and August 21 this year. Arora, who is fighting the case himself, told Newslaundry he expects the judgement to be in his favour as he has submitted “enough documents” to prove his case. If the verdict does not go their way, he added, his department is ready to move the courts. 

Newslaundry contacted TOI for a comment on the case but was unable to get a response.