Allahabad High Court Bans Hookah Services in Uttar Pradesh

The Allahabad High Court has barred commercial hookah services even in designated smoking areas of public places in Uttar Pradesh.

Allahabad High Court Bans Hookah Services in UP Restaurants

Syllabus Mapping

UPSC Prelims —Indian Polity and Governance — Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc; Current events of national and international importance,
UPSC Mains — GS Paper II: Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure; Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation; Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance—applications, models, successes, limitations and potential.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that restaurants in Uttar Pradesh cannot provide hookah services, even within designated smoking areas.
The judgment came while hearing 81 petitions filed by restaurants seeking permission to provide hookah services under such areas.

The Court held that the right to breathe clean air in public places is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This right cannot be overridden by the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court held that providing hookah in restaurants violates Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, as amended in 2017.
A designated smoking area is only an exception allowing smoking; it does not permit restaurants to commercially provide smoking-related services.
The Court rejected attempts to bypass the prohibition through:
- Self-service arrangements
- Renting hookah equipment
- Preparing or supplying hookah outside the smoking area

The Court held that preparing, assembling, delivering, lighting, refilling or maintaining a hookah for customers constitutes a service.
It observed that the 2017 amendment changed the wording of Rule 4(3), strengthening the prohibition on providing services in designated smoking areas.
The Court also clarified that food authorities and municipal bodies cannot issue licences specifically for operating hookah bars in Uttar Pradesh.
Enforcement under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 can involve measures such as search, seizure and penalties.

India ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2004.
The Court noted that some states, including Gujarat, Punjab, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Karnataka, have adopted stricter measures against hookah bars.
The judgment highlights the balance between public health, fundamental rights and commercial interests.

About Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 is a Fundamental Right under Part III (Articles 12–35) of the Constitution and protects the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
Text: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
It applies to both citizens and non-citizens.
The State cannot arbitrarily interfere with a person's life or liberty.
‘Life’ means more than mere physical existence; it includes the right to live with dignity.
‘Personal Liberty’ covers various aspects of individual freedom, including privacy, movement and livelihood.

Procedure Established by Law:
- The State can restrict life or liberty if it acts according to a validly enacted law and prescribed procedure.
- The concept has its roots in the Japanese Constitution.
Due Process of Law:
- Courts can examine not only the procedure but also whether the law is fair, just and reasonable.
- It is associated with the U.S. Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court expanded Article 21 and held that the procedure affecting life or liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.

42nd Amendment (1976): Expanded the constitutional framework during the Emergency, including restrictions affecting fundamental rights.
44th Amendment (1978): Strengthened protection of Articles 20 and 21 during an Emergency.
86th Amendment (2002): Inserted Article 21A, making free and compulsory education a Fundamental Right for children aged 6–14 years.

Through judicial interpretation, Article 21 has been linked with:

Practice Question

Q. With reference to Article 21 and the Allahabad High Court’s ruling on hookah services in Uttar Pradesh, consider the following statements:

The right to breathe clean air in public places has been recognised as an aspect of the Right to Life under Article 21.
A designated smoking area in a public place permits an establishment to commercially provide smoking-related services, provided smoking itself is confined to that area.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the interpretation of Article 21 by requiring a procedure affecting life or personal liberty to be fair, just and reasonable.
Article 21 is available only to Indian citizens, unlike Article 19, which is available to both citizens and non-citizens.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2, 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

The right to breathe clean air has been recognised by Indian courts as part of the broader Right to Life under Article 21. Hence, Statement 1 is Correct.
A designated smoking area is a limited exception to the prohibition on smoking in public places. It does not authorise restaurants to commercially provide hookah or other smoking-related services. Hence, Statement 2 is Incorrect.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 broadly and held that the procedure affecting life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Hence, Statement 3 is Correct.
Article 21 applies to “persons” and therefore protects both citizens and non-citizens. Hence, Statement 4 is Incorrect.