Case at a glance: A Division Bench has dismissed petitions by more than 70 restaurants and cafes and held that hookah service cannot be offered in Uttar Pradesh even within Designated Smoking Areas. The Court read the 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 as barring any service in such areas, rejected self-service and rental workarounds, and held that non-smokers' right to clean air under Article 21 prevails over trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Restaurateurs and cafes holding food licences ran hookah service in Designated Smoking Areas. Police raids followed, including at a Gomti Nagar, Lucknow cafe in May 2023, with preventive orders under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reported by Verdictum. The petitioners sought a declaration that hookah service in Designated Smoking Areas is lawful.
Before the Court were three issues: whether hookah service is permitted in such areas after the 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) of the 2008 Rules made under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA); whether self-service or equipment-rental models avoid the bar; and which authority can enforce it.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is hookah service permissible in Designated Smoking Areas after the 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, and can self-service or rental models avoid the bar?
Why the 2017 Amendment Changed the Position
As reported, the pre-2017 rule said “no other service(s)” could be provided in a Designated Smoking Area; the 2017 amendment changed this to “no service shall be allowed”. The Court read this as an absolute prohibition on hookah service in such areas, and treated Narinder S. Chadha v. MCGM as a pre-amendment decision that does not help the petitioners.
It held that preparing a hookah, with tobacco, water, foil and heated charcoal, requires expertise and is a service, not self-service, and described the self-service and rental models as attempts to obfuscate. It held that Article 21's protection of non-smokers' right to clean air prevails over trade under Article 19(1)(g), that police have enforcement powers under COTPA, and that food safety and municipal authorities cannot licence hookah bars.
What the Court Actually Held
- All the petitions were dismissed; hookah service is barred even in Designated Smoking Areas.
- Self-service and equipment-rental models do not avoid the bar, since preparation is a service.
- A food licence or municipal trade licence does not authorise hookah service.
- Police have enforcement powers under COTPA; copies of the judgment were directed to the Chief Secretary and the DGP of Uttar Pradesh.
- The State was encouraged to notify stringent penalties, as other States have done.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It closes the Designated Smoking Area argument that hookah lounges had relied on.
- It ranks public health and non-smokers' rights above a commercial claim to trade.
- It rejects creative business models designed to sidestep a statutory prohibition.
- It clarifies that enforcement lies with the police under COTPA rather than with food or municipal authorities.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Counsel Advising Cafes and Restaurants
- Advise that a Designated Smoking Area offers no protection for hookah service in Uttar Pradesh after this ruling.
- Warn clients that self-service and rental structures are unlikely to be accepted.
For Counsel in Public Health and Regulatory Matters
- Cite the ruling for the weight given to Article 21 and the plain wording of the amended Rule 4(3).
Key Takeaways
- Hookah service is barred in Uttar Pradesh even in Designated Smoking Areas.
- The 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) changed the wording to “no service shall be allowed”.
- Self-service and rental models do not avoid the prohibition.
- Police have enforcement powers under COTPA; food and municipal authorities cannot licence hookah bars.
Frequently Asked Questions
According to this ruling, not in Uttar Pradesh, since Rule 4(3) as amended in 2017 prohibits any service in such areas.
No. The Court treated hookah preparation as a service and rejected those models as obfuscation.
The Court held the police have enforcement powers under COTPA; food safety and municipal authorities cannot licence hookah bars.
Conclusion
The judgment gives a firm reading of the amended Rule 4(3) and treats the health of non-smokers as a constitutional interest that outweighs a commercial claim.
Practical takeaway: Clients running hookah lounges in Uttar Pradesh should treat the activity as unlawful, with no safe harbour in a Designated Smoking Area or in a rental structure.