The Allahabad High Court has held that restaurants in Uttar Pradesh cannot operate hookah bars or provide hookah services in Designated Smoking Areas, holding that such services are prohibited under Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, as amended in 2017. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary. The case arose from a batch of 81 writ petitions concerning restaurants and establishments seeking to continue hookah-related operations.
Background
The lead petition, M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., concerned a restaurant operating under a food-service licence in Lucknow. The petitioners argued that they had designated smoking areas and that police interference was preventing them from running hookah services. They also contended that the Food Safety Department and municipal authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue or regulate hookah licences.
The Court noted that Rule 4(3) was amended in 2017, replacing the earlier expression “no other service” with “no service” in a Designated Smoking Area. According to the Court, this amendment made the prohibition broader and prevented establishments from treating smoking areas as an extension of their normal commercial service area.
The Bench rejected the argument that a self-service arrangement could avoid the prohibition. It examined the process involved in preparing and operating a hookah, including assembling the apparatus, preparing the smoking substance, applying heat and maintaining the hookah for the customer. The Court concluded that these activities amount to “service” under the amended Rule 4(3).
The Court observed:
“The 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) imposes an absolute and unqualified prohibition on all services within a Designated Smoking Area.”
The Bench further held that providing a prepared hookah could not be treated merely as rental because its use remained confined to the Designated Smoking Area. It also held that police authorities possess statutory powers under COTPA to enforce its provisions, including search, seizure, confiscation and penalties where violations are found.
The Court also emphasised the constitutional protection available to non-smokers, observing:
“The right of the non-smoker to breathe clean air in a public place is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The High Court answered the central question against the petitioners and held that hookah bars cannot lawfully operate or render hookah services in Designated Smoking Areas within public places in Uttar Pradesh. It held that such operation and service violate Rule 4(3) of the amended Rules and are contrary to the scheme of COTPA. All the connected writ petitions were dismissed.
The Registry was directed to send the judgment to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for information and necessary compliance.
