Court directs petitioners to implead ITC, finance ministry, SEBI and others in the PIL

The bench comprising Justice Manjula Chellur and G S Kulkarni, on Wednesday, was hearing the PIL filed by Sumitra Pednekar and others against the Union of India and state-owned insurance companies, including LIC. 

The farmers association represented by their counsels also requested their inclusion in the PIL, which was granted by the High Court.

As per directions from the Court, the concerned parties will now have to file their respective affidavits in reply to the petition within six weeks.

The next hearing in the matter is likely to be held within eight weeks. The High Court also directed the Additional Solicitor General of Bombay to represent the Union of India in the matter.

Senior counsels, Venkatesh Dhond and Vineet Naik along with Avishkar ManuSinghvi and lawyers from MZM Legal, including Waseem Pangarkar, the firm representing the petitioners made the opening remarks as to why the petition held merit.

In response, senior counsels, including Ravi Kadam, Rafique Dada and Janak Dwarkadas representing the respondents argued against the PIL stating that the investments made in companies were in the secondary market and not in any direct investment in the operations of the company.

Senior counsels, Powaiyya and Iqbal Chaggla, representing farmers' associations, brought up the issue of farmers in various states being dependent on tobacco as a livelihood, especially in drought prone regions.

He also added that the PIL was filed to seek clarity on the State policy on tobacco, especially because the Government of India, which is almost like a co-owner in a tobacco company such as ITC is also a signatory to the WHO convention which discourages investment of state in tobacco companies.

This becomes a matter of public interest given that considerable expenditure from the state exchequer is incurred on improving healthcare and awareness related to cancer caused by tobacco.

The High Court however was of the view that all parties affected by the petition would have to be heard and were accordingly directed to file their affidavits in reply.

Sumitra Pednekar, the lead petitioner, expressed satisfaction on the hearing saying, “I am happy about the view taken by the Honourable Court in the matter. We have full faith in the judiciary and hope the cause of tobacco victims will now find its logical and socially desirable conclusion."