The lawyer was ordered to submit an affidavit of regret within two-days by the bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna.
A lawyer who had filed a petition against the display of anti-tobacco warning messages during movies and TV shows was pulled up by the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, and they requested that he file an affidavit of regret within two days.
“He must give an affidavit of regret for what has happened, then we will expunge these observations. Absolute regret is needed in this matter, nothing less than that,” the Court said.
The court is looking into the attorney’s appeal against the rulings of a single judge who had previously denied his petition.
The division bench declared that the petition was completely erroneous and that it agreed completely with the single judge.
“This man needs a course correction. What the learned single judge has said, it is absolutely correct. The petition should have never been filed,” Justice Manmohan remarked.
The lawyer’s petition was denied by the single judge, who noted that the tobacco industry lobby was supporting it in order to stop the government from raising awareness about tobacco use.
Justice Subramonium Prasad had expressed the opinion that the petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs, but he had also cautioned the advocate against bringing pointless petitions in the future.
“But looking at the Petitioner, who is a young Advocate having a bright future ahead, this Court restrains itself from making any comments on the Petitioner which might have a bearing on his future,” the Court had said.
The Court further stated that because a lawyer had abused public interest litigation, the case required the application of a “firm hand.”
The Court said while speaking to the appellant directly “Please have a course correction,” It’s too early in the day to begin in this manner.
The Court further stated that the cancer was spreading and that the younger generation would not be aware of it if people are not made aware of how cancer spreads.
[Divyam Aggarwal V. Union Of India & Anr]