Section 3. Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) advertisement includes any visible representation by way of notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and also includes any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light, sound, smoke or gas;
(b) cigarette includes,--
(i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any other substance not containing tobacco,
(ii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco, which, by reason of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filter, or its packaging and labelling is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as cigarette, but does not include beedi, cheroot and cigar;
(c) distribution includes distribution by way of samples, whether free or otherwise;
(d) export, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking out of India to a place outside India;
(e) foreign language means a language which is neither an Indian language nor the English language;
(f) import, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means bringing into India from a place outside India;
(g) Indian language means a language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution, and includes any dialect of such language;
(h) label means any written, marked, stamped, printed or graphic matter, affixed to, or appearing upon, any package;
(i) package includes a wrapper, box, carton, tin or other container;
(j) prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(k) production, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes the making of cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, beedis, cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, chewing tobacco, pan masala or any chewing material having tobacco as one of its ingredients (by whatever name called) or snuff and shall include--
(i) packing, labelling or re-labelling, of containers;
(ii) re-packing from bulk packages to retail packages; and
(iii) the adoption of any other method to render the tobacco product marketable;
(l) public place means any place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not, and includes auditorium, hospital buildings, railway waiting room, amusement centres, restaurants, public offices, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like which are visited by general public but does not include any open space;
(m) sale, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another, whether for cash or on credit, or by way of exchange, and whether wholesale or retail, and includes an agreement for sale, and offer for sale and exposure for sale;
(n) smoking, means smoking of tobacco in any form whether in the form of cigarette, cigar, beedis or otherwise with the aid of a pipe, wrapper or any other instruments;
(o) specified warning means such warnings against the use of cigarettes or other tobacco products to be printed, painted or inscribed on packages of cigarettes or other tobacco products in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(p) tobacco products means the products specified in the Schedule.
STATE AMENDMENT
Maharashtra
Amendment of section 3 of Act 34 of 2003.--In section 3 of the Cigarettes and Other Tabacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), after clause (e), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--
(ee) hookah bar means an establishment where people gather to smoke tobacco from a community hookah or narghile which is provided individually;
[Vide Maharashtra Act 60 of 2018, s. 2.]
Gujarat
Amendment of section 3 of Act 34 of 2003.--In the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 3, after clause (e), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--
(ee) hookah bar means an establishment where people gather to smoke tobacco from a communal hookah or narghile which is provided individually;.
[Vide Gujarat Act 27 of 2017, s. 2.]
Rajasthan
Amendment of section 3, Central Act No. 34 of 2003.-In section 3 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (Central Act No. 34 of 2003), hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, after the existing clause (e) and before the existing clause (f), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-
“(ee) “hookah bar” means an establishment where people gather to smoke tobacco from a communal hookah or narghile which is provided individually;”.
[Vide Rajasthan Act 1 of 2020, s. 2.]
How courts have applied section 3
- Gutka, pan masala and chewing tobacco with tobacco as an ingredient are tobacco products under COTPA, not 'food' under FSSA.1,2,3,4
- COTPA is a special act prevailing over FSSA; the Food Safety Commissioner cannot ban tobacco under Section 30(2)(a) of FSSA.5,4,6,7,8
- Food-safety prohibition bans on smokeless tobacco, issued repeatedly year after year, are arbitrary and violate Article 14.3,6,7
- Hookah tobacco is within the definition of 'production' under Section 3(k) of COTPA.9,10
- A restaurant trade licence gives no right to run a hookah centre; smoking in public places is barred by Section 4 read with Rule 4(3).9,10,11
- Police may inspect hookah premises under Section 12 and the Hyderabad City Police Act, but must not interfere with lawful business complying with conditions.12,13,14
- A hookah business not yet operating cannot seek a writ to protect it; the petition is premature.15,16
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here fall into two groups, both turning on how the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) defines tobacco products and how those definitions interact with other laws. One group concerns gutka and pan masala and holds that such products, containing tobacco, fall within COTPA's field, making the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, inapplicable to them. The other group, all from Telangana, concerns hookah and holds that hookah tobacco falls within the definition of 'production' under Section 3(k), and its smoking within Section 3(n). Courts in these orders also read the definition of 'public place' and 'label' as covering restaurant areas and packaging respectively.5,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,17,13
On the interaction with the FSSA, the courts were unanimous: COTPA is a special Act dealing with tobacco products, the FSSA is general, and therefore the Food Safety Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue prohibitory notifications for tobacco under Section 30(2)(a) of the FSSA. They reasoned tobacco is not 'food' within the FSSA and that COTPA occupies the entire field. The Delhi judgements added that the power under Section 30(2)(a) is temporary and emergent, and that repeated year-on-year bans constitute executive fiat. Several judgements held that distinctions between smokeless and smoking tobacco are arbitrary, violating Article 14.5,1,2,4,6,7,8,3
On hookah regulation, the courts held that a trade licence for a restaurant does not confer a right to run a hookah centre, because Section 4 read with Rule 4(3) prohibits service in a smoking area. Police have power under Section 12 and the Hyderabad City Police Act to inspect premises. Several orders disposed of petitions by imposing conditions: licences for charcoal use under the GHMC Act, permission under the City Police Act, no service to minors, display of pictorial warnings, and liberty for police to inspect, with police directed not to interfere once conditions are met. One judgement noted that under Section 3 hookah served without brand or label violates Section 7's warning requirements.9,10,11,12,13,14,17
Where a writ petition about hookah was filed before the business commenced, courts dismissed it as premature, holding no orders can be passed on assumptions. A petition by a trader challenging a food-safety order was allowed on the ground that the issue was covered by a Division Bench decision.15,16,18
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
Kona Venkata Bala Simhachalam @ Srinu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Outcome: AllowedGutka pan masala tobacco ban; G.O.Ms.No.6 dt.09.01.2013; Gazette Notification No.9 dt.30.01.2016; Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 Section 30(2)(a); FSSA Regulations 2011; COTPA 2003 Sections 3(m) 3(p); Joint Collector Adjudicating Officer Srikakulam; Food Safety Officer complaint;
AllowedOpenTelangana High Court (Single Judge, N.V. Shravan Kumar J., 29-08-2025), W.P. No. 25596 of 2025 — hookah lounge prematurity; flavoured hookah; writ of mandamus against police interference refused; COTP Act 2003 (COTPA) Sections 3(b)(k)(n), 4, 4A, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 discussed;
DismissedOpenA cafe sought protection against police interference with its flavoured hookah business. The court noted COTP Act provisions on tobacco products, labelling and seizure requirements, and disposed of the petition in terms of earlier orders, leaving authorities to decide any representation for permission according to law.
DisposedOpenPremature writ petition (Article 226) by hookah cafe dismissed - Telangana HC; flavoured hookah; YAARA Cafe / Yaraa Group of Hotels, Nanakramguda (Cyberabad police respondents); COTP Act Sections 3(b)(k)(n), 4, 4A, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13; Gujarat and Maharashtra Section 4A hookah-bar prohibitions noted as guide;
DismissedOpenRestaurants challenged police interference with serving flavoured hookah. The Court held hookah is a tobacco product regulated by the COTP Act; smoking is prohibited in public places except designated smoking areas where no service is permitted.
DisposedOpenCourt allowed this writ petition, relying on a common order dated 24.03.2023. It held that the Commissioner of Food Safety lacks jurisdiction to ban tobacco products like Gutka/Pan Masala under the FSSA 2006. COTPA 2003 is a special Act governing such products, overriding the general FSSA 2006.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
The High Court allowed multiple writ petitions challenging notifications banning tobacco products like Gutka and Pan Masala. The Court held that COTPA 2003 is a special Act overriding the general FSSA 2006, and the Commissioner of Food Safety lacked jurisdiction to issue such prohibitions.
AllowedOpenThis common oral order disposed of a large batch of writ petitions challenging notifications issued by the Food Safety Authority to ban Gutka/Pan Masala containing tobacco.
AllowedOpenM/S Shivam Betelnut Private Limited Vs Commissioner (Food Safety), Department of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil)The Delhi High Court quashed notifications prohibiting the sale of chewing tobacco issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, holding that tobacco is not 'food' under the FSSA, that COTPA occupies the field, and that the Commissioner exceeded his powers by imposing a permanent ban and discriminating between types of…
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenHarsh Infinity Flavour Private Limited Vs Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil)The Court quashed notifications by the Commissioner of Food Safety banning smokeless tobacco. Ruling that tobacco is not 'food' and that COTPA exclusively governs tobacco products, the Court held the Commissioner lacked statutory power to ban these items under the FSSA.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenK. Y. Tobacco Works Private Limited Vs Commissioner (Food Safety) Department of Food Safety Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil)The Single Judge held that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) is a special law occupying the entire field of tobacco regulation, prevailing over the general Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA).
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenVishnu Tobacco Manufacturing Vs Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil)A batch of writ petitions challenged notifications of the Commissioner of Food Safety banning manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of chewing tobacco, gutka and pan masala.
Writ Petition (Civil)Open
Batch of writ petitions by restaurant owners seeking protection against police interference with hookah service. The court held licences to run restaurants do not permit hookah centres, imposed statutory conditions including municipal charcoal licence and police permission, and directed police not to interfere if…
DisposedOpenThe High Court disposed of numerous writ petitions by restaurant owners challenging police interference regarding hookah services. Ruling that hookahs are tobacco products under COTPA 2003, the Court upheld police powers under the Act and City Police Act to inspect premises.
DisposedOpenThe High Court disposed of numerous writ petitions filed by coffee shop and restaurant owners challenging police interference with their business of serving flavored hookahs.
DisposedOpenThe High Court disposed of numerous writ petitions challenging police interference with hookah parlour business. Holding that COTP Act and Public Smoking Rules prohibit hookah service in public places unless a specific smoking area is permitted under the Hyderabad City Police Act and accompanied by charcoal usage…
DisposedOpenThe High Court addressed multiple writ petitions challenging police interference with coffee shops serving flavored hookahs. The Court held that police have power under Section 12 of the COTP Act to inspect premises.
DisposedOpenHigh Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging State notifications banning tobacco products like Gutka/Pan Masala. Court held COTPA is the special Act governing tobacco, rendering FSSA notifications ultra vires and invalid.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
High Court allowed multiple writ petitions challenging notifications by the Commissioner of Food Safety banning Gutka and Pan Masala containing tobacco. Court held COTPA is a special Act overriding the general FSSA regarding tobacco, declaring the notifications ultra vires.
AllowedOpenHigh Court allowed multiple writ petitions challenging notifications issued under FSSA 2006 banning Gutka and Pan Masala. Ruling that COTPA 2003 is a special Act governing tobacco products, rendering FSSA 2006 notifications ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Directs release of seized products.
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed a large batch of writ petitions challenging notifications banning tobacco-containing Pan Masala/Gutka issued under the FSSA, 2006. Relying on the COTPA, 2003 as a special law, the Court held such products are not 'food' and the Food Safety Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to regulate them.
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed a common order batch of writ petitions by relying on the earlier decision in W.P. No.30185 of 2021. The Court held that the Commissioner of Food Safety lacks jurisdiction to prohibit tobacco-containing products under the FSSA 2006, as COTPA 2003 is the special law governing such items.
AllowedOpen
Related subjects
- Writ and Judicial Review80,44,911