The Supreme Court yesterday issued notices to cigarette majors ITC, VST Industries, Godfrey Philips and GTC Limited on a public interest litigation field by former Congress MP Murli Deora, charging these companies with flouting laws by not displaying statutory warnings prominently in advertisement of their products.

The apex court also issued to the Attorney General seeking his views on the issues raised by Deora.

Reacting to the SC judgment, cigarette majors said that the anti-tobacco lobby had not scored a major victory as the apex court has not issued any notice on the Rs 500 crore compensation claim that was being sought. The Tobacco Institute of India, which represents leading industry players such as ITC, GPI and VST Ltd said in a statement: ``Since notices here issued on the limited question of compliance with the statutory warnings, the court didnot issue any notice to The Tobacco Institute of India, which had also been named as a respondent in the PIL.''

ITC sources said that the PIL, filed by Deora, was deemed to be inspired by a US litigation, not having direct cause of action in terms of the contemporary Indian context. ITC sources further said that after the SC notices, confined to statutory warnings, Deora's PIL has become a complaint against the Cigarette Act of 1975 limiting the scope to the twin issues of cigarette advertising and sports sponsorship cigarette brands.

A division bench comprising Justice Sujata V Manohar and Justice R P Sethi, hearing the PIL which also raised several issues from passive smoking to a compensation of Rs 500 crore to be collected from the companies, issued the notice limited to the question on statutory warnings.

Arguing before the apex court on behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Indira Jaisingh contended that ``statutory warning regime is shamelessly flouted by tobacco companies which resort toevery possible measure to make the warning inconspicuous including resorting to surrogate advertising and brand stretching.''

Giving an example, she said the players in a tournament sponsored by a cigarette company wear the logo of the company but without the statutory warning.

The Cigarettes (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 1975 makes it mandatory for the manufacturers to display boldly the statutory warning.

Terming the law in India in this regard as ``hopelessly unsatisfactory'', Jaisingh said this has encouraged foreign periodicals such as time to publish tobacco advertisements in India without any warning at all. The petitioner has highlighted that an estimated 63 lakh Indians die every year due to tobacco smoking-related diseases and sought a damage of Rs 500 crore from the tobacco companies towards health care of citizens.

Deora has cited the American example where the tobacco giants were forced by the legal authorities to pay over 400 billion dollars towards healthcre of the citizens.

The petitioner, contrasting the tighter regimen indifferent developed countries on sale of tobacco products with that in India, said the legislature has realised the grave harmful effects of smoking yet done precious little to regulate it.

``Instead of controlling and regulating the use of tobacco products, the Government has encouraged their sale and consumption,'' Deora said and added ``in 1979, tax on raw tobacco was abolished to prevent `harassment' of farmers''.

He has requested the apex court to direct the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to frame national tobacco policy (NTP) which should address the manufacture, marketing, sale, advertisement, distribution and consumption of tobacco products.