PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

RAJYA SABHA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING

COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

HUNDRED – ELEVENTH REPORT

THE CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT AND REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY

AND DISTRIBUTION), BILL, 2001

(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 5^TH DECEMBER, 2001)

(LAID ON THE TABLE OF LOK SABHA ON 5^TH DECEMBER, 2001)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

DECEMBER, 2001/AGRAHAYANA, 1923 (SAKA)

C O N T E N T S

1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

2. REPORT

3. OBSERVATION/RECOMMENDATION AT A GLANCE

4. APPENDICES

5. MINUTES

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

(2001-2002)

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

MEMBERS

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Akhilesh Das

4. Shri Eduardo Faleiro

5. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

6. Shri Dina Nath Mistra

7. Prof. R. B. S. Varma

8. Shri Bratin Sengupta

9. Shrimati Kamala Sinha

10. Dr. Ramendra Kumar Yadav “Ravi”

11. Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav

12. Shri Mrinal Sen

13. Dr. C. Narayana Reddy

LOK SABHA

14. Shrimati Jaskaur Meena

15. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal

16. Shri Ramakant Angle

17. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

18. Shri Baliram Kashyap

19. Shri Ramanand Singh

20. Shri Dileep Sanghani

21. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

22. Shri G. S. Baswaraj

23. Shri V. M. Sudheeran

24. Shrimati Shyama Singh

25. Shri Sunil Dutt

26. Shri Ramesh Chennithala

27. Shri Kantilal Bhuriya

28. Dr. Ram Chandra Dome

29. Shri Samik Lahiri

30. Dr. D.V.G. Shankar Rao

31. Shri Davendra Singh Yadav

32. Shrimati Renu Kumari

33. Shri Shivaji Mane

34. Shri Anandrao Vithoba Adsul

35. Dr. Baliram

36. Dr. A.D.K. Jayaseelan

37. Dr. V. Saroja

38. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

39. Shri Mohammed Anwarul Haque

40. Shri Vanlal Zawma

41. Shrimati Kumudini Patnaik

42. Shri S.B.P.B.K. Satyanarayana Rao

43. Dr. S. Venugopal

SECRETARIAT

Shri Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

2. LIST OF WITNESSES WHO GAVE ORAL

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

3. VERBATIM RECORD OF ORAL EVIDENCE

TENDERED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

(i) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 3^RD MAY, 2001

(ii) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 2^ND JULY, 2001 (iii) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 3^RD JULY, 2001

(iv) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 19^TH JULY, 2001

(v) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 20^TH JULY, 2001

(vi) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 15^TH OCTOBER, 2001

(vii) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 16^TH OCTOBER, 2001

(viii) VERBATIM RECORD OF THE MEETING

OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 2^ND NOVEMBER, 2001

REPORT

I, the Chairman of the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, having been authorized by the Committee to present the Report on its behalf, present this Hundred-Eleventh Report of the Committee relating to the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Bill*, 2001. (please see Appendix-I)

2. In pursuance of Rule 270 relating to the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committees, the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, in consultation with the Speaker, Lok Sabha referred** the Bill, as introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 7^th March, 2001 and pending therein, to the Committee for examination and Report.

3. As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, tobacco is universally regarded as one of the major public health hazards and is responsible directly or indirectly for an estimated eight lakh deaths annually in the country. It has also been stated that the treatment of tobacco related diseases and the loss of productivity caused thereby cost the country almost Rs. 13,500 crores annually which more than offsets all the benefits accruing in the form of revenue and employment generated by tobacco industry. Keeping in view the seriousness of the problem and recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation(10^thLok Sabha), the need for a comprehensive legislation to prohibit advertising and regulation of production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and tobacco products was felt and a decision was taken to bring forward a suitable legislation in this regard.

4. The Bill seeks to put total ban on advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products and to prohibit sponsorship of sports and cultural events, either directly or indirectly as well as sale of tobacco products to minors. The Bill also proposes to make rules for the purpose of prescribing the contents of the specified warnings, the languages in which they are to be displayed, and displaying the quantities of nicotine and tar contents of these products. The objective of the proposed legislation is to reduce the exposure of people to tobacco smoke (passive smoking) and to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors and to protect them from becoming victims of misleading advertisements. It is hoped that this measure will result in a healthier lifestyle and the protection of right to life enshrined in the Constitution.

5. The Committee held eight-sittings, in all, to consider and finalise its report on the Bill.

6. At its first meeting held on the 30^th May, 2001 the Committee discussed the Bill in general and sought clarifications on various allied aspects from the Secretary, Department of Health, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Having regard to the wider ramifications of the Bill, it was decided to invite memoranda from individuals / organizations / institutions etc. interested in the subject matter of the Bill. For this purpose an advertisement was issued in almost all the leading dailies of the country and wide publicity was also given through Doordarshan and All-India Radio as well. (please see Appendix-II)

7. The Committee received 55 memoranda containing suggestions and comments on various provisions of the Bill from a number of interested individuals, organizations, institutions, associations etc. (please see Appendix ‘III’ for the list) Representatives of a number of associations, trade unions, and also NGOs, ex-MPs, appeared before the Committee to air their views and also apprehensions on various aspects of the Bill. (please seeAppendix ‘IV’ for the list). Besides hearing the views of the Department of Health, the Committee also held interactions with representatives of all the Departments/Ministries which are likely to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the implementation of various provisions of the proposed Bill or likely to be affected after the Bill comes into force.

*Published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II, Section 2, dated the 7^th March, 2001.

**Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II dated the 12^th March, 2001.

8. Historically speaking, use of tobacco in one form or the other can be traced back to the 16^th century. However, it took nearly 400 years for the world to identify the life-taking diseases like cancer of different forms and various other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases caused by the consumption of tobacco. The medical science identified tobacco as the single major cause of mortality and morbidity all over the world. Smoking alone accounts for the highest death rate in the age group of 35-64 years i.e. about 30 per cent for men and 22 per cent for women and is responsible for roughly 3 million deaths annually. Toxicity in the smoke emitted by the cigarettes is so menacing that all persons around including children and the elderly persons, despite being non-smokers, are compelled to consume the smoke without even knowing that the smoke that they are inhaling is gradually putting their own life into jeopardy. The effect of other tobacco products like beedies, cigars, paan masala, gutka, chewing tobacco has been found to be equally harmful. Estimates of persons suffering from cancer, coronary heart diseases and chronic obstructive lung disease on account of tobacco use suggest that in India, there are about 1.41 lakh persons suffering on account of different types of cancer of which one-third are women, about 43 lakh persons are suffering from coronary artery disease and another 40 lakh suffering from obstructive lung disease. What is a cause of serious concern is that treatment and management of these three diseases is extremely resource intensive,necessitating substantial diversion of resources available within the country whether in the private or public domain.

9. In view of the adverse impact of tobacco on health, all the member countries of World Health Organization (WHO) resolved to implement tobacco control through legislative means and increase public awareness. So far, 133 countries have enacted legislation to discourage tobacco consumption and out of these, 128 countries have imposed a ban in one form or the other on advertisement of tobacco products and many of them have made it compulsory for the tobacco product manufacturers to indicate the nicotine and tar content on the packages. The Committee has been informed that a comprehensive anti-tobacco legislation is reported to have been found to be effective as countries with stronger controls on advertising have recorded a lower consumption of tobacco.

10. In order to deal with the enormity of health hazards caused by tobacco, Government decided to regulate its consumption through legislative means and brought forward the Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act in 1975 which, inter alia, made it mandatory to display a statutory warning “Cigarette smoking is injurious to health” on all packages of cigarettes and in all advertisements. Another step in this direction was taken in the year 1990 through an executive instruction of the Cabinet Secretariat through which smoking was prohibited at certain public places like hospitals, dispensaries, educational institutions, conference rooms, domestic air flights, AC sleeper coaches in trains, etc.

11. In view of the need felt from time to time and the international experience gained in this regard, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare formulated a strategy for reducing the use of tobacco through an anti-tobacco legislation. After approval by the Committee of Secretaries on 10^th August, 1992, the proposal was submitted to the Cabinet recommending the replacement of the Cigarettes(Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975 by a more comprehensive anti-tobacco legislation which would, inter alia, provide for a complete ban on all forms of advertisements in respect of all tobacco products, a statutory warning including information on the nicotine and tar content on all packages of tobacco and tobacco products in a more prominent manner, prohibition of sale of tobacco or tobacco products within a distance of 100 meters from educational institutions / hospitals and ban on tobacco smoking at public places. The Cabinet at its meeting held on 24^th September, 1993 approved the proposal for drafting a Bill in this regard.

12. Meanwhile, in February, 1995, the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation (10^th Lok Sabha) examined the rules and regulations framed under the Cigarettes(Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1975. The Committee during its deliberations took cognizance of the fact that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was in the process of bringing out a comprehensive legislation on “Prohibition of Advertising and Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution of Tobacco Products”. The Committee in its 22^nd Report presented to the Lok Sabha on 22^nd December, 1995 made a series of recommendations which were examined by a Coordination Committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Commerce, Agriculture, Labour, Information and Broadcasting, Indian Council of Medical Research and NCERT. While most of the Ministries agreed with the recommendations of the Committee, the Ministry of Labour was of the view that the adverse impact of such a legislation on the livelihood of labour force involved in tobacco production, processing and marketing could not be ignored. Thereafter, comments and reactions of all the concerned Ministries were obtained on the draft Cabinet note which was approved by the Cabinet at its meeting held on the 6^th February, 2001. After approval by the Cabinet, the present Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 7^th March, 2001.

13. The Committee before finalizing its report on the Bill considered various memoranda, papers / documents placed before it and the views expressed by the witnesses on the Bill.

14. The Committee considered and adopted the report at its meeting held on 2^nd November, 2001.

15. The recommendations / observations of the Committee with regard to the principal changes proposed in the Bill are given below :-

Legislative competence of Parliament relating to the Bill :

15.1 The Bill contains restrictive provisions governing cigarettes as well as other tobacco products. However, as per clause 1 (2) of the Bill, after enactment, it will extend to the whole of India in respect of cigarettes alone. Provisions relating to other tobacco products will be made applicable, in the first instance, to the States of Goa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, which have adopted the proposed legislation in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution and also to the Union Territories. Provisions relating to other tobacco products can be made applicable to the other States only after they adopt this Act by a Resolution passed in that behalf in pursuance of Clause(I) of Article 252 of the Constitution. In other words, the Bill cannot be made applicable in the entire country as far as other tobacco products are concerned, as in the case of cigarettes.

15.2 During the course of its discussions and interaction with witnesses, one view point which emerged was that when Parliament is competent to legislate on cigarettes, it should be equally competent to legislate on matters relating to other tobacco products, both being health hazards. It was pointed out that the proposed legislation seemed to be discriminatory in nature because of its restricted applicability in respect of tobacco products when compared with cigarettes. Such a situation was uncalled for specially in view of the consumption pattern prevalent in our country. Whereas tobacco in othercountries is synonymous with cigarettes, in our country bulk of tobacco consumption, i.e. 84% is in the from of beedis and chewing tobacco/gutka etc., cigarettes accounting for merely 16%

15.3 When asked to comment on this view point during the course of the meeting of the Committee held on the 30^th May, 2001, the Secretary, Department of Health clarified that Government intended to create an umbrella legislation which was not automatically binding on the State Governments statutorily for other tobacco products, but which could be adopted later on if State legislature felt the need for same. He informed the Committee that legal opinion in this regard was obtained from the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. Legal position as clarified by the Ministry of law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Legal Affairs) in 1997 is as follows:-

“The law relating to production, supply and distribution of industrial products can be made under Entry 26 of the State List or Entry 33 of the Concurrent List of the VII schedule of the Constitution of India. Under Entry 33, Parliament may enact a law in respect of those industries which are controlled industries under Entry 52 of List 1. Cigarette Industry has been included as item 38(1) of the First Schedule of Industries (Development andRegulation) Act, 1952. Parliament is, therefore, competent to enact a law relating to cigarettes and not for other forms of tobacco products which are within the jurisdiction of the State Legislature.

However, in view of the provisions contained in Article 252 (1) of the Constitution of India, Parliament would be competent to enact law in respect of tobacco products for those States which adopt the law passed by the Parliament by adopting a Resolution by the House of the State or where there are two Houses by each of the Houses of the Legislature of that State. The State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Goa and Punjab have passed Resolution to adopt Central Government Legislation on the subject”.

15.4 However, one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee in its meeting held on 3^rd July, 2001 advocated that Parliament has given the Union jurisdiction over all tobacco products by virtue of section 2 of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 which reads as follows:-

"It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the tobacco industry”.

15.5 The above provision was incorporated under Entry 52 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution under which Parliament can make law relating to industries the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. It was thus not necessary for Parliament to receive Resolutions from the States under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution authorising Parliament to pass an Act in this behalf.

15.6 Committee's attention was also drawn to the Supreme Court Judgement in thecase of ITC and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others 1985 (Supp) SCC 476 whereby Supreme Court has ruled that the entire tobacco industry stands under the control of Union as a consequence of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975.

15.7 Because of raising of legal issues regarding the legislative competence of Parliament relating to the Bill, the Committee decided to seek the opinion of Department of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs in the matter. The Department of Legal Affairs in its opinion dated 24^th August, 2001 stated as under:-

“It is true that while enacting the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, a parliamentary declaration as envisaged under entry 52 of the Union List was made in Section 2 thereof to the effect that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the tobacco industry. Nevertheless, the vital question is whether by virtue of that control, the Parliament can legislate regarding trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of other tobacco products and as also on aspects such as prohibition of smoking in public places and prohibition of advertisement of tobacco products and to provide for statutory warning about harmful effects of smoking / consumption of other tobacco products. The answer to this question would depend on the extent of the control of tobacco industry taken over by the Union under the Tobacco Board Act, 1975. As it would appear from the long title of the Act, the Act was enacted to bring development of the tobacco industry under the control of the Union. The Act provides for setting up of Tobacco Board for that purpose. The Board regulates the production / plantation and disposal of Virginia tobacco. That apart, it also authorizes the Central Government to make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import and export of tobacco and tobacco products. Thus, it would appear that all the objectives of the present Bill are not covered by the Tobacco Board Act, 1975. The contents and scope of the Tobacco Board Act and the present Bill are different. In the absence of a separate declaration as envisaged under entry 52 of the Union List, it may be open to challenge, if the applicability of the proposed law as regards other tobacco products is extended to the whole of India. Therefore, the Bill seeks to extend the proposed law only to those States, namely, Goa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal in the first instance, legislatures of which have passed resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution. In other words, in the absence of such a declaration, the Parliament appears to have competence to make law regarding other tobacco products for the purposes mentioned in the Bill only for the States, the legislatures of which have passed resolutions under Article 252 of the Constitution authorizing Parliament to make law.”

15.8 The Department further stated ¾

“It would not be out of place to mention that the 39^th World Health Assembly meeting held in Geneva in May, 1996 had passed a Resolution ‘Tobacco & Health’ whereby it confers tobacco smoking and use of tobacco in any of its form is on attainment of ‘Health for All’ by the year 2000 AD. That resolution also urged the member States to implement tobacco control strategies through legislative means and increased public awareness. This resolution also enables Parliament to make law for the whole or any part of territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body. For the purposes of present Bill, the above resolution was not, however, invoked.”

15.9 The Department of Legal Affairs has opined that whether Parliament’s jurisdiction may be assumed by making a separate declaration under entry 52 of the Union List for the purpose of extending the applicability of the proposed law to the whole of India in respect of other tobacco products is a matter of policy. If such a declaration is decided to be made under entry 52 of the Union List specifically identifying other tobacco products, i.e. other tobacco industries, the Parliament would have jurisdiction to make law in respect of products of such tobacco industries even in the absence of resolution of State Legislatures under Article 252 of the Constitution. According to the Department, in that event it would also be advisable to utilize the resolution passed by World Health Assembly in May, 1986 so as to avoid any possible attack on Parliament’s competence to make law relating to aspects concerning health which are otherwise covered under entry 6 of the State List.

15.10 The Committee also heard the Secretaries in the Departments of Health and Legal Affairs for further clarification in the matter at its meeting held on the 16^th October, 2001. The Committee fails to understand as to why the Supreme Court Judgement and World Health Assembly Resolution were not taken into account while deciding the legislative competence of Parliament in the context of the present Bill. Contention of the Department of Health that in Constitutional matters, they rely completely on the advice given by the Ministry of Law does not seem to be fully convincing. The Committee is also not inclined to agree with the impression given by the Department of Health that World Health Assembly Resolutions, being recommendatory in nature, can not be treated as international obligations. There is also no doubt that final decision in the matter of Parliament's jurisdiction in the present case which is a policy issue is to be decided by the Government, but the fact remains that comprehensive advice inclusive of all the relevant aspects should have been given by the Ministry of Law in the first instance itself.

15.11 The Committee feels that the Bill in its present form makes discrimination between cigarettes and other tobacco products and also discriminates amongst their users. While the smokers of cigarettes will be restricted throughout the country, the users of other tobacco products will have no restriction at all in the States where the proposed legislation may not be adopted. The Committee, therefore, asked the Secretaries to submit a draft of the clause enabling Parliament to legislate on all tobacco products, for its consideration.

15.12 The Committee considered the draft clause submitted by the concerned departments and recommends that the Preamble to the Bill may be replaced as under :-

“Whereas, the Resolution passed by the 39^th World Health Assembly (WHO), in its Fourteenth Plenary meeting held on the 15^th May, 1986 urged the Member States of WHO which have not yet done so to implement the measures to ensure that effective protection is provided to non-smokers from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and to protect children and young people from being addicted to the use of tobacco;

And whereas, the 43^rd World Health Assembly in its Fourteenth Plenary meeting held on the 17^th May, 1990, reiterated the concerns expressed in the Resolution passed in the 39^th World Health Assembly and urged Member States to consider in their tobacco control strategies plans for legislation and other effective measures for protecting their citizens with special attention to risk groups such as pregnant women and children from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke, discourage the use of tobacco and impose progressive restrictions and take concerted action to eventually eliminate all direct and indirect advertising, promotion and sponsorship concerning tobacco;

And whereas, India is a signatory to the above said Resolutions and it is considered necessary to implement the said Resolutions and in pursuance of Article 253 of the Constitution;

And whereas, it is considered expedient to enact a comprehensive law on tobacco control in the public interest and to protect the public health;

And whereas, it is expedient to prohibit the consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products which are injurious to health and with a view to achieving improvement of public health in general as enjoined by Article 47 of the Constitution;

And whereas, it is expedient to prohibit the advertisement of, and to provide for regulation of trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution of, cigarettes and other tobacco products and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto;

15.13 In addition to the above, the following declaration may also be issued under Entry 52 of Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution as has been done under the Tobacco Board Act to make the legislation effective all over India as follows:

“Declaration as to expediency of control by the Union –It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the tobacco industry”.

In this connection, the Committee would also like to point out that inspite of the declaration made under Section 2 of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 and the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of ITC Ltd. and others Vs State of Karnataka and others, 1985 (Supp) SCC 476, a similar and separate declaration has been advised by the Department of Legal Affairs to be incorporated in the present Bill also.

15.14 The Committee also recommends that consequential changes necessitated by incorporation of the above provision in the Bill may also be carried out where necessary.

Clause 2 :

15.15 This clause defines various expressions used in the Bill. Sub-clause (l) of this clause provides definition of the expression “Public Place”. The Committee recommends that under this definition Railway Waiting Room may also be included.

Clause 6 :

15.16 This clause puts restrictions on trade and commerce in and production, supply and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products. As per sub-clause (1) of this clause, indication of specified warning has been made compulsory on every package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products. The Committee recommends that besides written warning, some symbol like skull, cross bones or any suitable pictorial depiction may also be given specially for the convenience of illiterate or semi literate consumers.

15.17 As per sub-clause(5) of this clause, indication of nicotine and tar contents has been made compulsory for cigarettes. However, it exempts other tobacco products from this requirement. The Committee is of the view that nicotine and tar content present either in cigarettes or beedis or in other tobacco products make no discrimination in terms of causing injury to human body. The Committee apprehends that by requiring only cigarettes to declare nicotine and tar contents will create the impression that other tobacco products do not contain such substances and are, therefore, less harmful. This perception could result in consumption shifting away from cigarettes to other tobacco products. It, therefore, recommends that printing of nicotine and tar contents as well as maximum permissible limit thereof on packets and cartons of all tobacco products be made compulsory. The Committee also recommends that consequential changes necessitated by the above change may also be carried out in the relevant provisions of the Bill.

Clauses 15, 20 and 22 :

15.18 Clause 15 provides for penalty not exceeding five times the value of the package of cigarettes or of any other tobacco products of Rupees one thousand whichever is more where specified warning is not contained on package of cigarettes and other tobacco products and contents of nicotine and tar are not indicated on package of cigarettes. Clause 20, for the same offence, prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both in the case of first conviction and imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both in the case of second or subsequent conviction.

15.19 The Committee feels that clauses 15 and 20 provide different sets of punishment for the same offence which will be against the principle of natural justice. It, therefore, recommends that these two clauses may be combined together. The Committee also finds that punishment for both the producer and the seller is the same. In this connection, the Committee notes that cigarettes and other tobacco products come to the retailer for sale in the package form. The main responsibility for ensuring the specified warning and/or indication of nicotine and tar content on the package of cigarettes and other tobacco products is that of the producer or manufacturer and not the seller. Moreover, a seller of these products is generally a poor and illiterate or semi-literate person who does not possess the capability to read and understand the nuances of nicotine and tar content. The Committee, therefore, is of the considered view that there should be different penalties for producers /manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

15.20 Clause 22provides punishment for advertisement of tobacco products. As per this clause a person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees for contravening the provision of section 4 in the case of first conviction. For the second and subsequent conviction the penalty would be imprisonment upto three years or with fine which may extend to Rs. two lakhs or both.

15.21 The Committee also observes that punishment for failure to give specified warning, nicotine and tar content and advertisement of tobacco products as prescribed in clauses 20 and 22 seem to be excessive and disproportionate when compared to penalties prescribed for much more serious offences. For example, under section 275 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishment for sale of adulterated drugs is 6 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. For the attempt to commit culpable homicide, section 308 of IPC prescribes imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both. The Committee strongly feels that penalties prescribed in clauses 20 and 22 will create unnecessary and unjustified harassment specially for petty traders, retailers and hawkers as well as increase the scope for corruption. The Committee, therefore, recommends that provisions of clauses 20 and 22 need to be reviewed in the light of punishments provided in comparable legislations.

Clause 25

15.22 This clause relates to prevention, detention and place of trial of offences under sections 3 and 5. Clause 25(2) empowers a police officer or any officer of the State Government, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, to arrest any person without warrant when he has reasonable ground to believe that such person has committed an offence under section 3 or section 5. The Committee feels that given the nature of offence contemplated under section 3 or section 5, arresting anyone without warrant or on mere apprehension that he might have violated the provisions of these sections is very harsh. The Committee also apprehends that bestowing of such blanket power on the officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police may become a tool of exploitation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that there should not be any provision for arrest without proper warrant in case of violation of the provisions of section 3 or section 5.

15.23 The Committee is in agreement with other provisions of the Bill.

16 General

The Committee has been given to understand that if a person is kept away from tobacco for the first twenty years of his life, there is a very high probability that he will remain tobacco free for rest of his life. Hence, it is mostly the teenagers and young school or college going students who are most vulnerable to the addiction of tobacco. The Committee is, therefore, of the view that availability of cigarette and other tobacco products should be made difficult for these age groups of people. As a first step, the Committee feels that sale of cigarettes and tobacco products should be completely banned within a radius of five hundred yards of educational institutions and therefore, recommends making a suitable provision to this effect in the Bill.

17 General Recommendations and Observations :

17.1 The Committee, besides recommending amendments to various clauses of the Bill, wishes to make certain general recommendations and observations which though not directly related to the Bill, may have consequential effect in different spheres. It will be necessary to address those issues while bringing in this legislation. Some of the issues which the Committee feels, need to be addressed, are given below:

Farmers and workers

17.2 The Committee had the opportunity to interact with a number of associations representing tobacco farmers and growers and various trade unions. By and large, there was support for the Bill as a safeguard for public health. However, the Committee noticed that there was deep apprehension on its likely impact on the employment scenario in the tobacco sector. It was repeatedly pointed out to the Committee that as a result of ban on advertisements and sale of tobacco products and various other restrictions proposed in the Bill, the demand for such products would decline thereby adversely affecting the production of tobacco and tobacco products resulting in loss of employment and livelihood to millions of farmers and workers presently engaged in tobacco sector.

Import of cigarettes

17.3 The Committee has been given to understand that domestic cigarette industry is suffering heavily due to the present import policy of the Government. The Committee notes that cigarette is a bound item and as per the WTO resolution a maximum import duty of 150% can be levied. However, in India the present import duty on cigarette is only 35% which is adversely affecting the domestic cigarette industry. The Committee fails to understand the reason behind keeping an import duty of only 35% on an item like cigarette, which is a known health hazard, when the same can be increased upto 150% as per the WTO resolution. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the import duty on cigarettes needs to be increased to the maximum admissible level so as to discourage its use on the one hand and preventing the country from becoming the dumping ground of foreign cigarettes on the other.

Smuggling of cigarettes

17.4 The Committee was given to understand that the cigarette industry in the country has experienced an abnormal increase in the availability of smuggled brands in recent years. Situation has worsened with growing influx of low priced brands, further eroding the domestic industry. Cartons of cigarettes land into the country as a duty-free item for personal consumption which actually find their way in the market for sale at a higher premium. It was pointed out that an unintended consequence of restrictions and regulations on the domestic cigarette industry as proposed in the present Bill will be that contraband sales will get a further fillip. The Committee finds this situation very serious and alarming and opines that existing mechanism needs to be strengthened urgently to check such kind of undesirable and illegal activities in the country.

Segregation in hotels, restaurants and airports

17.5 The representatives of the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India voiced their reservations about ban on smoking in restaurants as envisaged in the proposed Bill. Their contention was that such a move would adversely affect the hotel industry as there was likelihood of decrease in the number of persons visiting hotels and restaurants. The Federation suggested to the Committee that a suitable provision could be incorporated in the Bill providing for segregation of smoking and non-smoking areas in a restaurant/hotel which has a seating capacity of fifty persons or more. Similarly, a provision could be made for demarcating smoking and non-smoking zones in hotels which have a capacity of fifty rooms or more. The Federation also added that they were suggesting this because of the fact that small hotel/restaurant owners might find it difficult to make necessary arrangement for segregation. Representatives of ASSOCHAM and CII also advocated flexibility in deciding smoking and non-smoking areas in Airports besides hotels and restaurants.

17.6 The Committee having considered the issue in its entirety recommends that a suitable provision may be incorporated in the Bill so as to provide for segregation of smoking and non-smoking area/space in hotels/restaurants having a seating capacity of 30 persons or 30 rooms and also airports.

Advertisement through Media

17.7 The Committee has been given to understand that multinational cigarette companies have built extremely strong brand appeals through sustained and massive advertising and promotional inputs over many decades. A number of witnesses who appeared before the Committee were of the view that the advertising restrictions laid down in the proposed Bill will lead to discrimination between domestic and foreign cigarette manufacturers. While domestic manufacturers will be prohibited from advertising, foreign cigarette MNCs will have the freedom to advertise on satellite TV, foreign print media having a circulation in India and also on internet, thereby giving them an unfair competitive advantage over Indian brands. The Committee shares the apprehensions expressed by various associations.

17.8 The Committee discussed this issue with the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Secretary informed the Committee that presently there is only one Central Monitoring Service agency which monitors foreign broadcasting. This agency is very old and belongs to the eighties when most of the broadcasting was public broadcasting. The Committee feels that, at present, when most of the broadcasting is private and there are innumerable private television and radio channels and new channels coming up every day, such an ill-equipped Central monitoring service won’t be able to keep a constant tab on foreign and private channels. The Secretary admitted that presently they do not have a system or a center which can monitor each and every channel, record the violation of domestic laws therein and instruct the cable operator to stop transmitting that particular channel which is violating the law. The Secretary informed the Committee that efforts would be made to include a scheme in the Tenth Plan whereby a fully equipped monitoring mechanism is set up.

17.9 The Committee recommends that the Centre and the States should constitute joint monitoring committees which are equipped with state-of-the-art monitoring equipments so that in case of violation of any domestic law by any of the channels, prompt action could be taken against them. The Committee also feels that foreign TV channels that earn advertising and distribution revenue in India, should be made accountable to ensure that they do not beam tobacco advertising into the country. Besides that, there is also a need for having of suitable penal provision in the Bill for cable TV operators if they transmit and promote tobacco advertisements through their network.

Social Awareness

17.10 The Committee is of the considered view that apart from Legislation, an anti-tobacco campaign should be launched so as to make the people conscious of the ill effects of use of tobacco. An atmosphere should be created in which people give up the habit of tobacco consumption voluntarily. This would make the job of implementation of the legislation easier and effective. The Committee feels that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting can play a very effective role by developing ad films highlighting the ill-effects of tobacco consumption and broadcasting and televising them on different channels on a regular basis. Besides this, students in schools and colleges also need to be educated through their curriculum as this section of society is considered to be the most vulnerable.

NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 2, 2001

S.B. CHAVAN
Chairman,
Department-related Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Human
Resource Development

OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE

The Committee fails to understand as to why the Supreme Court Judgement and World Health Assembly Resolution were not taken into account while deciding the legislative competence of Parliament in the context of the present Bill. Contention of the Department of Health that in Constitutional matters, they rely completely on the advice given by the Ministry of Law does not seem to be fully convincing. The Committee is also not inclined to agree with the impression given by the Department of Health that World Health Assembly Resolutions, being recommendatory in nature, can not be treated as international obligations. There is also no doubt that final decision in the matter of Parliament's jurisdiction in the present case which is a policy issue is to be decided by the Government, but the fact remains that comprehensive advice inclusive of all the relevant aspects should have been given by the Ministry of Law in the first instance itself. (Para 15.10)

The Committee feels that the Bill in its present form makes discrimination between cigarettes and other tobacco products and also discriminates amongst their users. While the smokers of cigarettes will be restricted throughout the country, the users of other tobacco products will have no restriction at all in the States where the proposed legislation may not be adopted. The Committee, therefore, asked the Secretaries to submit a draft of the clause enabling Parliament to legislate on all tobacco products, for its consideration. (Para 15.11)

The Committee considered the draft clause submitted by the concerned departments and recommends that the Preamble to the Bill may be replaced as under :-

And whereas, India is a signatory to the above said Resolutions and it is considered necessary to implement the said Resolutions and in pursuance of Article 253 of the Constitution;

In addition to the above, the following declaration may also be issued under Entry 52 of Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution as has been done under the Tobacco Board Act to make the legislation effective all over India as follows:

“Declaration as to expediency of control by the Union –It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the tobacco industry”.

The Committee also recommends that consequential changes necessitated by incorporation of the above provision in the Bill may also be carried out where necessary. (Para 15.14)

The Committee recommends that besides written warning, some symbol like skull, cross bones or any suitable pictorial depiction may also be given specially for the convenience of illiterate or semi literate consumers. (Para 15.16)

The Committee is of the view that nicotine and tar content present either in cigarettes or beedis or in other tobacco products make no discrimination in terms of causing injury to human body. The Committee apprehends that by requiring only cigarettes to declare nicotine and tar contents will create the impression that other tobacco products do not contain such substances and are, therefore, less harmful. This perception could result in consumption shifting away from cigarettes to other tobacco products. It, therefore, recommends that printing of nicotine and tar contents as well as maximum permissible limit thereof on packets and cartons of all tobacco products be made compulsory. The Committee also recommends that consequential changes necessitated by the above change may also be carried out in the relevant provisions of the Bill. (Para 15.17)

The Committee feels that clauses 15 and 20 provide different sets of punishment for the same offence which will be against the principle of natural justice. It, therefore, recommends that these two clauses may be combined together. The Committee also finds that punishment for both the producer and the seller is the same. In this connection, the Committee notes that cigarettes and other tobacco products come to the retailer for sale in the package form. The main responsibility for ensuring the specified warning and/or indication of nicotine and tar content on the package of cigarettes and other tobacco products is that of the producer or manufacturer and not the seller. Moreover, a seller of these products is generally a poor and illiterate or semi-literate person who does not possess the capability to read and understand the nuances of nicotine and tar content. The Committee, therefore, is of the considered view that there should be different penalties for producers /manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes and other tobacco products. (Para 15.19)

The Committee also observes that punishment for failure to give specified warning, nicotine and tar content and advertisement of tobacco products as prescribed in clauses 20 and 22 seem to be excessive and disproportionate when compared to penalties prescribed for much more serious offences. For example, under section 275 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishment for sale of adulterated drugs is 6 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. For the attempt to commit culpable homicide, section 308 of IPC prescribes imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both. The Committee strongly feels that penalties prescribed in clauses 20 and 22 will create unnecessary and unjustified harassment specially for petty traders, retailers and hawkers as well as increase the scope for corruption. The Committee, therefore, recommends that provisions of clauses 20 and 22 need to be reviewed in the light of punishments provided in comparable legislations. (Para 15.21)

The Committee feels that given the nature of offence contemplated under section 3 or section 5, arresting anyone without warrant or on mere apprehension that he might have violated the provisions of these sections is very harsh. The Committee also apprehends that bestowing of such blanket power on the officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police may become a tool of exploitation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that there should not be any provision for arrest without proper warrant in case of violation of the provisions of section 3 or section 5. (Para 15.22)

The Committee is in agreement with other provisions of the Bill. (Para 15.23)

16 General

The Committee is, therefore, of the view that availability of cigarette and other tobacco products should be made difficult for these age groups of people. As a first step, the Committee feels that sale of cigarettes and tobacco products should be completely banned within a radius of five hundred yards of educational institutions and therefore, recommends making a suitable provision to this effect in the Bill. (Para 16)

17 General Recommendations and Observations :

Import of cigarettes :

The Committee notes that cigarette is a bound item and as per the WTO resolution a maximum import duty of 150% can be levied. However, in India the present import duty on cigarette is only 35% which is adversely affecting the domestic cigarette industry. The Committee fails to understand the reason behind keeping an import duty of only 35% on an item like cigarette, which is a known health hazard, when the same can be increased upto 150% as per the WTO resolution. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the import duty on cigarettes needs to be increased to the maximum admissible level so as to discourage its use on the one hand and preventing the country from becoming the dumping ground of foreign cigarettes on the other. (Para 17.3)

Smuggling of cigarettes :

The Committee finds this situation very serious and alarming and opines that existing mechanism needs to be strengthened urgently to check such kind of undesirable and illegal activities in the country. (Para 17.4)

The Committee having considered the issue in its entirety recommends that a suitable provision may be incorporated in the Bill so as to provide for segregation of smoking and non-smoking area/space in hotels/restaurants having a seating capacity of 30 persons or 30 rooms and also airports. (Para 17.6)

Advertisement through Media

The Committee feels that, at present, when most of the broadcasting is private and there are innumerable private television and radio channels and new channels coming up every day, such an ill-equipped Central monitoring service won’t be able to keep a constant tab on foreign and private channels. The Secretary admitted that presently they do not have a system or a center which can monitor each and every channel, record the violation of domestic laws therein and instruct the cable operator to stop transmitting that particular channel which is violating the law. The Secretary informed the Committee that efforts would be made to include a scheme in the Tenth Plan whereby a fully equipped monitoring mechanism is set up. (Para 17.8)

The Committee recommends that the Centre and the States should constitute joint monitoring committees which are equipped with state-of-the-art monitoring equipments so that in case of violation of any domestic law by any of the channels, prompt action could be taken against them. The Committee also feels that foreign TV channels that earn advertising and distribution revenue in India, should be made accountable to ensure that they do not beam tobacco advertising into the country. Besides that, there is also a need for having of suitable penal provision in the Bill for cable TV operators if they transmit and promote tobacco advertisements through their network.(Para 17.9)

Social Awareness

The Committee is of the considered view that apart from Legislation, an anti-tobacco campaign should be launched so as to make the people conscious of the ill effects of use of tobacco. An atmosphere should be created in which people give up the habit of tobacco consumption voluntarily. This would make the job of implementation of the legislation easier and effective. The Committee feels that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting can play a very effective role by developing ad films highlighting the ill-effects of tobacco consumption and broadcasting and televising them on different channels on a regular basis. Besides this, students in schools and colleges also need to be educated through their curriculum as this section of society is considered to be the most vulnerable.(Para 17.10)

M I N U T E S

*IX

NINTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Wednesday, the 30^th May, 2001 in Committee Room `A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Akhilesh Das

3. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

4. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

5. Prof. R.B.S. Varma

6. Shri Bratin Sengupta

7. Dr. C. Narayana Reddy

8. Shri M.P.Abdussamad Samadani

LOK SABHA

9. Shrimati Jaskaur Meena

10. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal

11. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

12. Shri Baliram Kashyap

13. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

14. Shri G.S. Baswaraj

15. Shri V.M. Sudheeran

16. Shrimati Shyama Singh

17. Shri Ramesh Chennithala

18. Dr. Ram Chandra Dome

19. Shri Samik Lahiri

20. Shri Shivaji Mane

21. Dr. V. Saroja

22. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

23. Shri Vanlal Zawma

WITNESS

1. Shri J.A. Chowdhary, Secretary, Department of Health

Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, DGHS
Shri G.R. Patwardhan, Additional Secretary
Dr. Bela Shah, Senior Deputy Director General, ICMR

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*-Minutes of the 1^st to 8^th meetings relate to other matters.

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the members and the officials to the meeting of the Committee on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Thereafter, the Chairman informed that a Press Release Advertisement is proposed to be issued by the Secretariat to invite comments/suggestions from interested individuals/organisations on the Bill.

3. The Committee, thereafter, heard the Secretary on the Bill. Members sought clarifications thereon. The Secretary, then, replied to the queries raised by the Members.

3A. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept .

4. The Committee, thereafter, adjourned at 12.20 P.M. to meet again at 10.00 A.M. on Friday, the 8^th June, 2001.

X

TENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Friday, the 8^th June, 2001 in Committee Room `A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Eduardo Faleiro

4. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

5. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

6. Shri Bratin Sengupta

7. Dr. Ramendra Kumar Yadav “Ravi”

8. Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav

LOK SABHA

9. Shrimati Jaskaur Meena

10. Shri Baliram Kashyap

11. Shri Ramanand Singh

12. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

13. Shri V. M. Sudheeran

14. Shri Ramesh Chennithala

15. Shri Samik Lahiri

16. Shri Davendra Singh Yadav

17. Shri Anandrao Vithoba Adsul

18. Dr. Baliram

19. Dr. A.D.K. Jayaseelan

20. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

21. Dr. S. Venugopal

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

2. The Committee considered the Draft 107^th, 108^th, 109^th and 110^th Action Taken Reports of the Committee on the Problem of Drop-Outs, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Adult Education and Vocational Education respectively. The Committee, after some discussion, adopted the Reports with certain modifications.

3. The Committee decided that the reports may be presented/laid in both the Houses in the ensuing Monsoon Session. The Committee, in this connection, authorised Shri Maurice Kujur and Shri Dina Nath Mishra to present the Reports in the Rajya Sabha and Shri Trilochan Kanungo and Shri Baliram Kashyap to lay the Reports in the Lok Sabha.

4. The Chairman informed that the Committee will meet again on the 2^nd and 3^rd July,2001 to hear the Secretaries of various Ministries/Departments and NGOs who are concerned with the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001.

5. The Committee, thereafter, adjourned at 11.40 A.M. to meet again at 10.00 A.M. on Monday, the 2^nd July, 2001.

ELEVENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Monday, the 2^nd July, 2001 in Committee Room `A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Eduardo Faleiro

4. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

5. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

6. Prof. R.B.S. Varma

7. Shri Bratin Sengupta

LOK SABHA

8. Shrimati Jaskaur Meena

9. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal

10. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

11. Shri Baliram Kashyap

12. Shri Ramanand Singh

13. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

14. Shri V. M. Sudheeran

15. Shri Samik Lahiri

16. Shrimati Renu Kumari

17. Shri Anandrao Vithoba Adsul

18. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

19. Shri Vanlal Zawma

WITNESSES

(i) M/o Small Scale Industries and Agro & Rural Industries

1. Shri S.K. Tuteja, Development Commissioner,

2. Shri S.R. Singh, Industrial Adviser

(ii) Deptt. of Agriculture & Co-operation

1. Shri J.L.N Srivastava, Secretary

2. Dr. C.R. Hazra, Agriculture Commissioner

(iii) Deptt. of Revenue

Shri S. Narayan, Secretary

(iv) Deptt. of Commerce

1. Shri R.Gopalan, Joint Secretary

2. Ms.Shripriya Ranganathan, Under Secretary

(v) Ministry of Labour

1. Shri Vinod Vaish, Secretary

2. Shri Manohar Lal, Joint Secretary

(vi) Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Shri Pawan Chopra, Secretary

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the Secretaries of the Ministry of Small Scale Industries and Agro & Rural Industries, Deptt. of Agriculture & Co-operation, Deptt. of Revenue, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Joint Secretary, Department of Commerce separately on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Members put queries which the officials replied.

2A. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

3. The Committee adjourned at 12.30 P.M. for lunch, reassembled at 3.00 P.M. and adjourned again at 4.30 P.M. to meet again at 10.45 A.M. on Tuesday, the 3^rd July, 2001.

XII

TWELFTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.45 A.M. on Tuesday, the 3^rd July, 2001 in Committee Room `A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Eduardo Faleiro

4. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

5. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

6. Shri Bratin Sengupta

7. Dr. Ramendra Kumar Yadav “Ravi”

8. Shri M.P. Abdussamad Samadani

LOK SABHA

9. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal

10. Shri Ramakant Angle

11. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

12. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

13. Shri G.S. Baswaraj

14. Shrimati Shyama Singh

15. Shri Ramesh Chennithala

16. Shrimati Renu Kumari

17. Shri Anandrao Vithoba Adsul

18. Shri Vanlal Zawma

WITNESS

(i) Representatives of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India, New Delhi

1. Shri Shyam Suri, Secretary General

2. Shri Sushil Gupta, Hon.Secretary

3. Shri N. Vasanth, Director, Environs. Adviser

(ii) Representatives of Tobacco Institute of India, New Delhi

1. Shri A.R. Poddar, Chairman

2. Shri S. Nohonta, Vice Chairman

3. Shri S. Thirumalai, Director

4. Shri A.C. Sarkar, Director

(iii) Representatives of Association for Consumer Action on Safety and Health (ACASH), Mumbai

1. Shri Satyadev R. Pandey

2. Ms. Shoba Johbn

3. Ms. Satvinder Mann

(iv) Representatives of Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI),

New Delhi

Mr. Taposh Roy

(v) Representatives of Voluntary Organisation in Interest of Consumer Education (VOICE), New Delhi

1. Shri Bijon Mishra

2. Dr. Shriram Khanna

3. Dr. Rupa Vajpayee

4. Ms. Yasmeen Zafar

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the Representatives of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India, New Delhi; Tobacco Institute of India, New Delhi; Association for Consumer Action on Safety and Health (ACASH), Mumbai; Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI), New Delhi and Voluntary Organisation in Interest of Consumer Education (VOICE), New Delhi separately on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Members put queries which the representatives replied.

2A. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

3. The Chairman informed that the Committee will meet again on the 19^th and 20^th July,2001 to hear other witnesses on the Bill

4. The Committee adjourned at 12.30 P.M. for lunch, reassembled at 3.00 P.M. and adjourned again at 4.30 P.M. to meet again at 10.00 A.M. on Thursday, the 19^h July, 2001.

XIII

THIRTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Thursday, the 19^th July, 2001 in Committee Room `E’, Basement, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Eduardo Faleiro

3. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

4. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

LOK SABHA

5. Smt. Jaskaur Meena

6. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

7. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

8. Shri G.S. Baswaraj

9. Shrimati Shyama Singh

10. Shri Kantilal Bhuriya

11. Shri Shivaji Mane

12. Dr. A.D.K. Jayaseelan

13. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

14. Shri Mohammed Anwarul Haque

15. Shri Vanlal Zawma

WITNESSES

(I) Indian Tobacco Association, Guntur

(i) Shri B. S. Krishna Murthy, President

(ii) Dr. P.P. Singh, Member

(iii) Shri C.K. Sharma, Member

(II) Tobacco Board, Guntur

Shri Mittapalli Uma Maheswara Rao, Member

(III) ASSOCHAM, New Delhi

(i) Shri D.S. Rawat, Asstt. Secretary General

(ii) Shri Anil Agarwal, Chairman, Expert Committee on International Trade

(iii) Shri Udayan Lall, Member

(iv) Ms. Chandrima Goswami, Programme Executive

(IV) Ex-Members

(i) Dr. Y. Sivaji, Ex-MP

(ii) Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, Ex-MP

(iii) Shri Daulatsinhji P.K. Jadeja, Ex-MP

(V) C.I.I., New Delhi

(i) Shri Tarun Das, Director General, C.I.I.

(ii) Shri K. Grant, CEO, ITC

(iii) Shri S.Sen, DDG, CII

(iv) Shri Ajay Khanna, DDG, CII

(v) Shri K.C. Ravi, Director, CII

(vi) Shri N.B. Mathur

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the Former Members of Parliament, Representatives of Indian Tobacco Association and Tobacco Board, Guntur, ASSOCHAM and C.I.I New Delhi, separately, on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Members put queries to which the witnesses replied.

2A. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

3. The Committee adjourned at 12.30 P.M. for lunch, reassembled at 3.00 P.M. and adjourned again at 4.30 P.M. to meet again at 10.00 A.M. on Friday, the 20^th July, 2001.

RECORD OF PROCEDEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Friday, the 20^thJuly, 2001 in Committee Room ` E’ Basement, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

LOK SABHA

2. Smt. Jaskaur Meena

3. Shri Ramakant Angle

4. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

5. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

6. Shri Kantilal Bhuriya

7. Shri Samik Lahiri

8. Dr. A.D.K. Jayaseelan

9. Shri Mohammed Anwarul Haque

10. Shri Vanlal Zawma

WITNESSES

I Trade Unions

(i) Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Secretary, AITUC

(ii) Shri S.N. Thakur, Secretary, AITUC

(iii) Shri K.L. Reddy, Central Secretary, BMS

(iv) Shri Suresh Sharma, Member,BMS

(v) Shri P.K. Ganguly Secretary, CITU

(vi) Shri V. Subramaniam, TUCC

(vii) Shri R.A. Mittal, Secretary, HMS

II Indian National Trade Union Congress

(i) Shri Chandidas Sinha, Secretary,

(ii) Shri A. Bambhani,

III Associations / Unions

(i) Shri Garikipati Seetharamaiah, Ex-Vice Chairman,

Tobacco Board and President, Nellore and

Prakasam Districts Tobacco Growers Association

(ii) Shri Venugopal Verma, President, Karnataka State

Beedi Workers Union, Bangalore

(iii) Shri P. Chengal Reddy, President, Federation of Farmers’ Associations, Hyderabad, A.P.

(iv) Com. R.K. Ratnakar, General Secretary, All India Bidi, Cigar, and Tobacco workers’ Federation.

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, separately, on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Members put queries to which the witnesses replied. The Committee also decided that legal opinion may be obtained from the Department of Legal Affairs on the Legislative competence of Parliament to make law on all tobacco products and directed the Secretariat to obtain the same.

2A. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

3. The Committee adjourned at 12.10 P.M.

XIV

FOURTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Monday, the 15^th October, 2001 in Committee Room 63, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

3. Prof. R.B.S. Varma

4. Shri Bratin Sengupta

5. Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav

LOK SABHA

6. Shrimati Jaskaur Meena

7. Shri Kirti Jha Azad

8. Shri Baliram Kashyap

9. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

10. Shri V. M. Sudheeran

11. Shrimati Shyama Singh

12. Dr. D.V.G. Shankar Rao

13. Shri Davendra Singh Yadav

14. Shri Shivaji Mane

15. Dr. Baliram

16. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

17. Shri Mohammed Anwarul Haque

WITNESSES

(I) Representatives of All India Beedi Industry Federation, Bombay

(i) Shri Nitin R. Desai, Vice President

(ii) Shri Rajnibhai Patel

(iii) Shri Sudhir Sable

(iv) Shri Hitendra Upadhyay

(II) Representatives of the East Godaveri District Tobacco Growers & Farmers Association, Hyderabad

Shri G. Subba Rao

(III) Representatives of Labour Forum, West Godaveri District, Eluru, A.P.

(i) Shri S.N. Rao

(ii) Shri V. Prabhakar

(iii) Shri K. Tilak

(IV) Shri S.M. Lal Jan Basha, Ex-M.P. ,

General Secretary & Politbureau Member, T.D.P.

(V) Representatives of Godavery Farmers Welfare Association, Tadepalligudem, A.P.

(i) Dr. P.P. Rao,

(ii) Shri G.M. Rao

(VI) Representatives of Andhra Farmers Forum, Rajahmundry, A.P.

(i) Shri D. Somasunder

(ii) Shri S.N. Rao

(VII) Representatives of Andhra Legal Education Society, Eluru, A.P.

Shri D.S.V. Krishanji

(VIII) Representatives of Indian Cancer Society, New Delhi

(i) Smt. Jyotsna Govil,Hon. Joint Secretary

(ii) Smt Raje Mehta

(iii) Shri Pankaj Dukhija

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the above mentioned witnesses separately, on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Members put queries to which the witnesses replied.

2A. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

3. The Committee adjourned at 11.30 A.M., reassembled at 3.00 P.M. and adjourned again at 4.30 P.M. to meet again at 10.00 A.M. on Tuesday, the 16^th October, 2001.

FIFTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Tuesday, the 16^th October, 2001 in Committee Room 63, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

4. Prof. R.B.S. Varma

5. Shri Bratin Sengupta

6. Dr. Ramendra Kumar Yadav “Ravi”

7. Chaudhary Harmohan Singh Yadav

8. Shri M.P. Abdussamad Samadani

LOK SABHA

9. Shrimati Jaskaur Meena

10. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal

11. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

12. Shri G. S. Baswaraj

13. Shrimati Shyama Singh

14. Shri Samik Lahiri

15. Dr. D.V.G. Shankar Rao

16. Shri Davendra Singh Yadav

17. Shri Shivaji Mane

18. Dr. Baliram

19. Shri Mohammed Anwarul Haque

20. Shri Vanlal Zawma

21. Dr. S. Venugopal

WITNESSES

Representatives of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health )

(i) Shri J.A. Chowdhury, Secretary

(ii) Dr. Srinivas Tata, Deputy Secretary

Representatives of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs (Department of Legal Affairs)

(i) Shri R.L. Meena, Secretary

(ii) Shri D.R. Meena, Joint Secretary & Legal Advisor

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the Secretaries, Department of Health and Department of Legal Affairs on the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. Members put queries to which the witnesses replied. The Committee directed the Secretaries to submit a draft of the Resolution empowering Parliament to enact legislation on other tobacco products for incorporation in the Report.

2A. A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.

3. The Committee then adjourned at 11.30 A.M.

XVI

SIXTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10.00 A.M. on Friday, the 2^nd November, 2001 in Committee Room 63, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Eduardo Faleiro

4. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

5. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

6. Prof. R.B.S. Varma

7. Shri Bratin Sengupta

LOK SABHA

8. Shri Shankar Prasad Jaiswal

9. Shri Baliram Kashyap

10. Shri Ramanand Singh

11. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

12. Shri G. S. Baswaraj

13. Shrimati Shyama Singh

14. Shri Sunil Dutt

15. Shri Kantilal Bhuriya

16. Shri Samik Lahiri

17. Dr. D.V.G. Shankar Rao

18. Shri Davendra Singh Yadav

19. Shri Shivaji Mane

20. Dr. A.D.K. Jayaseelan

21. Dr. V. Saroja

22. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

23. Shri Mohammed Anwarul Haque

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

Shri P. Narayanan, Committee Officer

2. The Committee considered the Draft Report on The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. The Committee, after some discussion, adopted the Report with certain modifications and decided to present it in Parliament in the ensuing Session

3. The Committee then adjourned at 11.30 A.M.

XVII

SEVENTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 3.00 P.M. on Monday, the 10^th December, 2001 in Committee Room 62, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri S.B. Chavan ¾¾ Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Maurice Kujur

3. Shri Akhilesh Das

4. Shri Rajnath Singh “Surya”

5. Shri Dina Nath Mishra

6. Shri Bratin Sengupta

7. Dr. Ramendra Kumar Yadav “Ravi”

8. Dr. C. Narayana Reddy

LOK SABHA

9. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan

10. Shri G. S. Baswaraj

11. Shri Kantila Bhuriya

12. Dr. Ram Chandra Dome

13. Shri Samik Lahiri

14. Dr. D.V.G. Shankar Rao

15. Shri Trilochan Kanungo

16. Shri Vanlal Zawma

SECRETARIAT

Smt. Vandana Garg, Director

Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary

Shri Ratan Kumar Sahoo, Research Officer

2. The Committee considered the Draft 112^th and 113^th Reports on Medical Education and Technical Education respectively. The Committee, after some discussion, adopted the Reports with certain modifications.

3. The Committee also decided that these Reports may be presented to Rajya Sabha and /laid in Lok Sabha on 13^th December, 2001. The Committee, in this connection, authorized Dr. C. Narayana Reddy and Shri Dina Nath Mishra to present the Reports in the Rajya Sabha and Shri Samik Lahiri and Dr. Ram Chandra Dome to lay the Reports in the Lok Sabha.

4. The Chairman also announced that the Committee will meet again at 3.00 p.m. on Thursday, the 13^th December, 2001 to consider and adopt the 114^th Report on Implementation of Elementary Education Schemes, as adopted by the Sub-Committee.

5. The Committee thereafter, adjourned at 4.35 P.M.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX-II

Parliamentary Committee on Human Resource Development invites suggestions on

the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and

Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001.

The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution), Bill, 2001. as introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 7^th March, 2001, has been referred to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, headed by Shri S.B. Chavan, M.P., for examination and report.

2. The Bill seeks to put total ban on advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products and to prohibit sponsorship of sports and cultural events either directly or indirectly as well as sale of tobacco products to minors. The objective of the proposed enactment is to reduce the exposure of people to tobacco smoke (passive smoking) and to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors and to protect them from becoming victims of misleading advertisements. This will result in a healthier life style and protection of right to life as enshrined in the Constitution. The proposed legislation further seeks to implement article 47 of the Constitution which, inter alia, requires the State to endeavour to improve public health of the people.

3. In this connection, it has been decided to invite suggestions/comments from individuals, organisations, institutions, tobacco growers etc. interested in the subject matter of the Bill. Interested persons, organisations, institutions, etc. can obtain copies of the Bill from the Committee Officer, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Cabin `E’, Basement, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi – 110001. Suggestions/Comments on the Bill can be sent to Shri C.B. Rai, Under Secretary, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House Annexe (Room No. 539), New Delhi-110001 Telephone: 3034053) latest by 30^th June, 2001. Persons/Organisations who are interested to appear before the Committee to express their views, besides written submission, may indicate so.

APPENDIX-III

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS/ASSOCIATIONS FROM WHOM MEMORANDA ON THE BILL WRERE RECEIVED

1. Shri V.V. Krishna Rao , President Samata Party

2 Shri D.S Rawat, Asst. Secretary General, ASSOCHAM

3 Dr. Dasari Narayana Rao Member of Parliament Rajya Sabha

4 Dr. Y Sivaji Former M.P.(Rajya Sabha) & Hon. President Virgina Tobacco Assocation of India.

5 Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, Ex. Members, Rajya Sabha

6 Shri Daulatsinhji, P.K. Jadeja, Ex. M.P., Lok Sabha

7 Shri D. Raja, Secretary, Communist Party of India

8 1.Sri Sachadev, A.I.T.U.C

2.Shri Bhakt, President B.M.S

3. Shri P.K. Ganguly, Secretary, C.I.T.U

4. Sri Mittal, H.M.S.,

5.Mr.V. Subramaniam,

9 Shri Garikipati Seetharamaiah (Ex. Vice Chairman Tobacco Board) ,President, Nellore and Prakasam Districts Tobacco Growers Association

10 Shri Venugopal Verma, President, Karnataka State Beedi Workers Union

11 Com.R.K. Ratnakar ,General Secretary, All India Bidi Cigar and Tobacco Workers Federation

12 Community Health Cell

13 Shri G.Subba Rao,Vice-President, The East Godavery District Tobacco Growers&Farmers Association

14 Shri G.Sivarama Pradsad ,Secretary, Tobacco Growers Welfare Association, Guntur

15 Shri S.M. Anantharamu, President ,Karnataka Tobacco Growers Forum Hunsur Subdivision Hunsur

16 Shri P. Lakshman Swamy, President Bidi& and Unorganised Workers Forum

17 Shri Aijaz Ali President Hotels And Restaurants Association Of Andhra Pradesh Indus Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.

18 Shri Shyam Suri , Secretary General, Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India, New Delhi

19 Shri J.C. Chopra,Chairman,The Indian Society of Advertisers

20. Shri K. Appal Raju President, The Godavary Tobacco Growers& Farmers Welfare Association

21 Shri B. Madhu ,Secretary, Andhra Farmers Forum

22 Shri Azeez Sait , President , The Mysore Beedi Mazdoor Association

23 Smt. Shobha Iyer , Coordinator, Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group

24 Secretary, Karnataka Beedi Industry Asssociation

25 Shri G. Ramand, Secy., All India Manufacturer`s Organisation

26 Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Head Office

27 Shri Chuni Goswami , Adviser, West Bengal State Council of Sports Govt. of West Bengal

28 Shri Sudhir Sable, President, Maharshtra Bidi Udoyg Sangh & Secretary,All IndiaBidi Industries Federation

29 President , Dakshina Kannada Beedi Contractors Association

30 Ms. Mira B Aghi , Bahavioral Scientist NGO`s National Co-ordinator,Tobacco Control

31 Shri Jagmohan Dalmiya , President ,BCCI.

32 Shri S. Ramaiah, Ex. M.P.( Lok Sabha)

33 Ms. Jyotsna Govil, Joint Secretary, Indian Cancer Society,Lady Ratan Tata Medical and Research Centre

34 Com. H.V. Anantha Subba Rao, President ITC Workers Union

35 Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Sankalp

36 Shri V.K. Hazarey, Secretary, Indian Academy of Oral Pathologists

37 Shri Iqbal Ahmed Shariff, Convener, Tobacco Consumers’

38 Dr. G. Thimmaiah, Former Member, Planning Commission

39 Consumer Education and Research Centre, Suraksha Sankool

40 Shri S. Balaraman, Parliament of India Activist

41 Shri Vijay Darda, M.P., Rajya Sabha, Chairman, Lokmat Group of Newspapers

42 Shri D. Somasundar, Secretary, AITUC

43 Shri Prakash C. Gupta, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

44 Representatives of Women`s Action Research & Legal Action for Women

45 All India Beedi Industry Federation, Bombay

46 Dr. S. Venugopal Member of Parliament Lok Sabha & Central Trade Unions

47 Shri Dashrath Singh General Secretary , The Munger Tobacco Manufacturing Workers` Union

48 Representation of Madurai Betel Nut Beedi Cigarette Merchants Association

49 P. Lakshman Swamy, President Bidi &Unorganized Workers

50 Representatives of Tobacco Institute of India

51 Representatives of Andhra Legal Literacy Forum.

52. Representatives of Indian Tobacco Association

53 Representatives of West Godavari Labour Forum

54. Rotary International

55. Jasojit Mookerjea ,Senior Vice President Indian Market Research Bureau

APPENDIX-IV

LIST OF WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

SL.NO. NAME OF WITNESS (ES) DATE OF HEARING

1. Secretary, Department of Health 30.5.2001

2. M/o Small Scale Industries and Agro & Rural Industries 2.7.2001

(i) Shri S.K. Tuteja, Development Commissioner,

(ii) Shri S.R. Singh, Industrial Adviser2.7.2001

3. Deptt. of Agriculture & Co-operation 2.7.2001

(i) Shri J.L.N Srivastava, Secretary

(ii) Dr. C.R. Hazra, Agriculture Commissioner

4. Deptt. of Revenue 2.7.2001

(i) Shri S. Narayan, Secretary

5. Deptt. of Commerce 2.7.2001

(i) Shri R.Gopalan, Joint Secretary

(ii) Ms.Shripriya Ranganathan, Under Secretary

6. Ministry of Labour 2.7.2001

(i) Shri Vinod Vaish, Secretary

(ii) Shri Manohar Lal, Joint Secretary

7. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 2.7.2001

Shri Pawan Chopra, Secretary

8. Representatives of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant 3.7.2001

Associations of India, New Delhi

(i) Shri Shyam Suri, Secretary General

(ii) Shri Sushil Gupta, Hon.Secretary

(iii) Shri N. Vasanth, Director, Environs. Adviser

9. Representatives of Tobacco Institute of India, New Delhi 3.7.2001

(i) Shri A.R. Poddar, Chairman

(ii) Shri S. Nohonta, Vice Chairman

(iii) Shri S. Thirumalai, Director

(iv) Shri A.C. Sarkar, Director

10. Representatives of Association for Consumer Action 3.7.2001

on Safety and Health (ACASH), Mumbai

(i) Shri Satyadev R. Pandey

(ii) Ms. Shoba Johbn

(iii) Ms. Satvinder Mann

11. Representatives of Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI), New Delhi 3.7.2001

Mr. Taposh Roy

12. Representatives of Voluntary Organisation in Interest of 3.7.2001

Consumer Education (VOICE), New Delhi

(i) Shri Bijon Mishra

(ii) Dr. Shriram Khanna

(iii) Dr. Rupa Vajpayee

(iv) Ms. Yasmeen Zafar

13. Indian Tobacco Association, Guntur 19.7.2001 (i) Shri B. S. Krishna Murthy, President

(ii) Dr. P.P. Singh, Member

(iii) Shri C.K. Sharma, Member

14. Tobacco Board, Guntur 19.7.2001

Shri Mittapalli Uma Maheswara Rao, Member

15. ASSOCHAM, New Delhi 19.7.2001

(i) Shri D.S. Rawat, Asstt. Secretary General

(ii) Shri Anil Agarwal, Chairman, Expert Committee on International Trade

(iii) Shri Udayan Lall, Member

(iv) Ms. Chandrima Goswami, Programme Executive

16. Ex-Members 19.7.2001

(i) Dr. Y. Sivaji, Ex-MP

(ii) Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, Ex-MP

17. C.I.I., New Delhi 19.7.2001

(i) Shri Tarun Das, Director General, C.I.I.

(ii) Shri K. Grant, CEO, ITC

(iii) Shri S.Sen, DDG, CII

(iv) Shri Ajay Khanna, DDG, CII

(v) Shri K.C. Ravi, Director, CII

(vi) Shri N.B. Mathur

18. Trade Unions 20.7.2001

(i) Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Secretary, AITUC

(ii) Shri S.N. Thakur, Secretary, AITUC

(iii) Shri K.L. Reddy, Central Secretary, BMS

(iv) Shri Suresh Sharma, Member,BMS

(v) Shri P.K. Ganguly Secretary, CITU

(vi) Shri V. Subramaniam, TUCC

(vii) Shri R.A. Mittal, Secretary, HMS

19. Indian National Trade Union Congress 20.7.2001

(i) Shri Chandidas Sinha, Secretary,

(ii) Shri A. Bambhani

20. Associations / Unions 20.7.2001

(i) Shri Garikipati Seetharamaiah, Ex-Vice Chairman,

Tobacco Board and President, Nellore and

Prakasam Districts Tobacco Growers Association

(ii) Shri Venugopal Verma, President, Karnataka State

Beedi Workers Union, Bangalore

(iii) Shri P. Chengal Reddy, President, Federation of Farmers’ Associations, Hyderabad, A.P.

21. Representatives of the East Godaveri District Tobacco Growers & Farmers Association, Hyderabad

Shri G. Subba Rao 15.10.2001

22. Representatives of All India Beedi Industry Federation, Bombay 15.10.2001

(i) Shri Nitin R. Desai, Vice President

(ii) Shri Rajnibhai Patel,

(iii) Shri Sudhir Sable,

(iv) Shri Hitendra Upadhyay

23. Ex-Member 15.10.2001

(i) Shri S.M. Lal Jan Basha, Ex-M.P. ,

General Secretary & Politbureau Member, T.D.P.

24. Representatives of Godavery Farmers Welfare Association, 15.10.2001

Tadepalligudem, A.P.

(i) Dr. P.P. Rao,

(ii) Shri G.M. Rao

25. Representatives of Andhra Farmers Forum, Rajahmundry, A.P. 15.10.2001

(i) Shri D. Somasunder

(ii) Shri S.N. Rao

26. Representatives of Andhra Legal Education Society, Eluru, A.P. 15.10.2001

Shri D.S.V. Krishanji

27. Representatives of Indian Cancer Society, New Delhi 15.10.2001

(i) Smt. Jyotsna Govil,Hon. Joint Secretary

(ii) Smt Raje Mehta

(iii) Shri Pankaj Dukhija

28. Representatives of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 16.10.2001

(Department of Health )

(i) Shri J.A. Chowdhury, Secretary, Deptt. of Health

(ii) Shri R.L. Meena, Department of Legal Affairs, Secretary, Depart. Of Legal Affairs