The Lahore High Court has upheld the federal government’s ban on advertising and promoting tobacco, cigarettes and paan products in Pakistan.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh dismissed a petition challenging the government’s notification, ruling that promoting such products is not a permanent constitutional right.
The court stressed that although businesses have the right to trade, commercial freedoms can be regulated in the public interest. The decision places public health and the right to a healthy environment at the centre of tobacco advertising regulations.
The court’s decision reinforces restrictions designed to limit the visibility and promotion of tobacco products. Advertising can influence how products are perceived, particularly by younger audiences, making responsible regulation an important public health measure.
The petitioners argued that advertising restrictions could potentially encourage illegal trade. The court rejected this reasoning, stating that the possibility of illicit activity was not enough to make the government’s notification unlawful.
The ruling highlights the balance between commercial freedoms and the state’s responsibility to protect public wellbeing. Businesses can conduct lawful trade, but their promotional activities may be regulated when broader public interests are involved.
By upholding restrictions on tobacco and paan advertising, the court has strengthened the legal framework limiting the promotion of products associated with serious health risks.
The decision also supports the wider goal of creating healthier public spaces, particularly by reducing the visibility and normalisation of tobacco products.
The Lahore High Court has upheld the federal government’s ban on advertising and promoting tobacco, cigarettes and paan products in Pakistan.
The Lahore High Court has upheld the federal government’s ban on advertising and promoting tobacco, cigarettes and paan products in Pakistan.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh dismissed a petition challenging the government’s notification, ruling that promoting such products is not a permanent constitutional right.
The court stressed that although businesses have the right to trade, commercial freedoms can be regulated in the public interest. The decision places public health and the right to a healthy environment at the centre of tobacco advertising regulations.
The court’s decision reinforces restrictions designed to limit the visibility and promotion of tobacco products. Advertising can influence how products are perceived, particularly by younger audiences, making responsible regulation an important public health measure.
The petitioners argued that advertising restrictions could potentially encourage illegal trade. The court rejected this reasoning, stating that the possibility of illicit activity was not enough to make the government’s notification unlawful.
The ruling highlights the balance between commercial freedoms and the state’s responsibility to protect public wellbeing. Businesses can conduct lawful trade, but their promotional activities may be regulated when broader public interests are involved.
By upholding restrictions on tobacco and paan advertising, the court has strengthened the legal framework limiting the promotion of products associated with serious health risks.
The decision also supports the wider goal of creating healthier public spaces, particularly by reducing the visibility and normalisation of tobacco products.
