Author: Rashmi Salpekar | Avlokiteshwar Padmapani Sidharth
25 years after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Murli S Deora vs Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 316 of 1999, it is time to ask whether we have done enough to protect our students.
Every morning, millions of young students leave their homes carrying books, ambitions, and the hopes of their families. The educational institutions welcome them with a promise that education will prepare them for a better future. The fulfillment of the promise of a better future depends not only on educational institutions but also on the various stakeholders, including the Government. The realisation of the promise extends beyond classrooms and examinations. It includes health, safety, and the environment in which students grow.
Twenty-five years ago, on 2 November 2001, the Supreme Court of India recognised something profoundly simple in Murli S Deora vs Union of India: No person should be compelled to suffer the harmful consequences of another person’s smoking. Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court prohibited smoking in public places, expressly including educational institutions.
What makes this judgment remarkable is that the Court did not stop at declaring a right. It demanded action.
When the Central Government failed to respond to earlier directions, the Court recorded its concern. Following the landmark judgment, it sought compliance reports within five weeks. In March 2002, affidavits from states were taken on record, and substantial compliance was reported. The message was unmistakable: protecting public health required responsibility and action, not merely assurances.
Parliament subsequently enacted the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA). While Section 4 prohibited smoking in public places, Section 6 prohibited tobacco sales to minors and within 100 yards of educational institutions. This provision is a safety shield for students. A minor student cannot buy it, and a major student cannot buy it easily, as students’ journey is generally limited to educational institutions.
The distance of 100 yards was fixed through legislation, not by the Supreme Court. It was an important protective measure, but one that deserves reconsideration after more than two decades.
Governments have continued the effort through the National Tobacco Control Program, the Tobacco-Free Educational Institutions Guidelines of 2019, and the Ministry of Education’s implementation manual of 2024. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has also encouraged higher educational institutions to strengthen tobacco-free campuses.
At present, our cities have changed. Schools and educational institutions are surrounded by crowded markets, commercial establishments, and busy roads. Students do not disappear when they cross the campus gate. Their journeys, friendships, and daily routines extend well beyond institutional boundaries. At times, it reaches coaching centers for various competitive exams, including IAS, and at times parks, too.
The emergence of electronic cigarettes is the new form and a new challenge. The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act 2019 is silent on its possession. Disciplinary actions of educational institutions have their own limitations. Therefore, the silence on its possession may result in its rampant use.
The distance of 100 yards is not merely a question of increasing a distance on paper. It is about revisiting the adequacy of the 100-yard limit and its scope, ensuring meaningful enforcement, strengthening penalties, and making educational institutions active partners in prevention. Presently, various State Governments are adopting regulations for coaching centers relating to almost all aspects, including its infrastructure to mental health of students. Thus, the 100-yard rule should be followed for private coaching centers also effectively.
As we commemorate 25 years of Murli S. Deora, we must remember that the Supreme Court gave us more than a prohibition. It reminded us that the right to life includes the right to breathe without being harmed by another’s choices. Moreover, just because someone has chosen to consume tobacco products willfully, can society end its responsibility? This question also needs an answer considering the dream of “Sashakt Bharat, Sudridh Bharat”. If we can expand the boundaries of education and its institutions to nurture our youth’s dreams, surely we can reconsider the boundaries of law to protect their lives.
Prof Rashmi Salpekar is Dean, Law & Legal Studies, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi, and Avlokiteshwar Padmapani Sidharth is a lawyer practicing in the Delhi High Court; Views presented are personal.