IN THE HIGH COURT OF I(ARNATAKA AT BAI{GALORE(Origtnal Jurisdictionf

sI.P. No. 55697/2O14 (GM-RES-PILI

BETWEENCancer Patients Aid Association

AI{DState of Karnatakaand Others

...Petitioner

...Respondents

INDEX

Sl. No Ps.rticulars Page No.

I Statement of Objections filed on behalf ofRespondent No.5

D Verifying Affidavit.

3. Annexure-Rl: Statement of expenditure oncrop developmentai Programmes

Place: BansaloreDate:i lsl t s' Counsel for Respondent No'5

(Krishna S.Dixit)

4 36q-

GI{E HIGI{ COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE:(Original' Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. 55697/2014 (GM-RES-PILI

BETuIEENCancer Patients Aid Association

ANDState of Karnatakaand Others

...Petitioner

...Respondents

6ntI

BEI{ALF'OFSTATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS FILEDRESPONDINT NO.s

The Respondent No.S subrnits as under-

1. In the above Writ Petition, the Petitloner has inter aliasought for:

]

l

d.. Direct the Respondent no 5 to lstop all governrnentsubsidies and incentives for tobacfo growing, includingproviding fertilizers, pesticides La"., at cornpetitiverates to tobacco farrners or grantling of crop loans for

' tobacco.

c. Direct the Respondent no 5 to st[p granting any new

tobacco growing licenses or certificates tLrereby

preventing an increase in land area under tobacco

, cultivation.

1l

b. Direct tkre Respond.ents to provide effective rneasures,

including incentives for tobacco fd.rrners in the state tohave alternative agricultr-rre avenrdes and take steps torehabilitate workers engaged in tobacco production.

,i

i

2. The Petition filed as a PIL propournds 4 .r.O lirnited facet ofl

tobacco i.e., the FCV tobacco crop grQwn in the state ofI

Karnataka while leaving out 2OO rnkgs of $CV tobacco grown inAndlrra Pradesh and 52O rn.kgs of Non-FCV tobacco grown in

,.1

several other states of India ernphasizin! the healttr hazards

4.

e' 37c -arising out of its consurnption and cornpletely ignores the sociairealit5r-of tobacco cr.rltivation in Ind.ia; tlre farrners involved in itscr.rltivation and the farrn workers dependent on this cultivationand related aspects.

;3. Th6 allegation rnade by th" Petitioner that the Respondent

No. 5 is extending subsidies to the tobacco farrners whichincentivises tobacco growing instead of adkrering to theRespondent lJnion Governrnent's obligations under the WHO's

Frarnework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) by way of,

,: tstopping subsidies to tobacco farrners is not true.

It is subrnitted that the Tobacco Board is set up under ar.

Act of parliarnent, The Tobacco Board Act, Lg75, Act 4 of1976. According to Section 8(1)(a) of the Tobacco Board Act,one'.of the irnportant functions of the Tobacco Board is to

regulate production and curing of Flue Cured Virginia tobaccohraving regard to tlre dernand for tobacco in India and abroad,rnarketability of different types of Flue Cured Virginia tobaccoand "other factors so as to ensure fair and rernunerative pricesto growers. This objective is sought to be achieved throughcrop planning and fixing crop size of Flue Cured VirginiaTobacco for Andhra Pradeskr and Karnataka separately everyyear- and by registering cornrnercial nrtrserymerr, tobaccogrowers and barn operatorg.

In India, FCV tobacco crop is the only agricultural cropwhich is subjected to stringent restrictions on areaplanted, quantity of tobacco producedf rnarketed. Moreoverexcess production of tobacco is subject to levy of heavypenalties deterring the farrners not to produce in excess ofauttrorised area and production. According to Section 1O(1)

of Tobacco, Board Act, 7975, no person shall grow FCVtobdbco without obtaining a certificate frorn the Board.

5.

3+l -According to Section 1O-A (1) of the Tobacco Board Act,

1975, no person slrall grow Virginia tobacco seedlings forcornrnercial pLrrposes unless he registers Lrirnself as a

cornrnercial nu.rsery grower. No person shall constmct andor operate a barn for curing of Virginia tobacco r.rnless he

obtains a license frorn the Board in accordance with theSection 11 B(ii) of the Act and tLre Rules there under.Violations of tLrese provisions of Act and Rr-rles entail a

punishrnent with imprisonrnent for a terrn which rnayextend to two years or wittr fine whickr rnay extend to fivethousand mpees or with both.

It is subrnitted that tLre Ministry of Cornrnerce andIndrrstry had already taken proactive steps to freeze the cropsize for FCV tobacco grown in Andhra Pradesh and Karnatakaby fixing Lrpper lirnits of tobacco prodr.rction since 2OO7-OA.

Tobacco Board kras restricted fi.rrther increase in the area

under tobacco by not granting registration to new growers,

and not issr.ring any licenses for construction of new barns

creating additional curi5rg infrastructure. FCV tobacco

cultivation is not being expanded to rrew areas. Thrrs Tobacco

Board's policy is in line with FCTC's initial objectiwe thatfirrther expansion of tobacco cultiwation shall not be

encouraged and is not against it..'

It is sr-r.brnitted that the Respondent No.5 advises the

farrners to take up alternative crops to certain extent which isadopted by farrners. During the ensuring season dr-re to

effor.ts rnade by the Board the extent of area under Flue Cr-rred

Virginia Tobacco cultivation has been reduced cornpared to

2O73-I4. Respondent No.S in general is not extending any

subsidies to the Flue Cured. Virginia Tobacco farrners except

in very few Model Project areas where experirnental trails are

taken up with new technologies as a part of Good AgriculturalPractices.

36.

7.

B.

9.

I

* 37Q

,,The rnandate of FCTC as perceived frorn Article 17 is tohelp farrners cope with a reduction in dernand by findingeconornically sustainable alternatives to tobacco farrningwhich are current and relevant, and based on scientific,tec.hnical and econornic considerations (Prearnble of FCTC).

*"t

Thi strategies sLrall take.into consideration local culture, as

well as social, econornic, political and legal factors (Guidingprinciple-3 in Article-4of FCTC) and shall be in consonancewith nationally developed strategies for sustainabledeveloprnent(Guiding principles -6 in Article-4of FCTC) whilerecognising tlre irnportance of technical and financialassistance'to aid the econornic transition of tobacco growersand workers whose livelihoods are serior:sly affected as aconsequence of tobacco control programrnes.

tl"

"'WHO FCTC in unequivoca-l language noted that it doesnot airn to penalize tobacco farrners, but aims to prornoteviable alternatives for tobacco workers, growers, and as thecase may be, individr.ral sellers. In the above background,su-pply reduction rneasures such as discontinuing ailsupport to tobacco production etc could be taken only afterkeeping in place econornically viable alternatives for growersor'' by prioritizing the recomrnendations of Nationalco_yrsultatfon on econornics of tobacco in tlre followingsequence: .::

i. Data collection on nrlrnber of farrners and farrnerprofiling, identification of agrarian systern and

. resol)rces;

ii. Identification of alternative crops,;

iii. Deciding policy options based. on policy instrurnentslike rehabilitation packages, subsid.ies or crop

, assistance for growing alternative crops and iv. pilot' Projects to identify the specificities of a given tobacco

10.

11.

-3=3'-growing area and finally forrnulating action plans fortobacco control;

iv. The Governrnent in consultation with all concerned

departrnents need to forrnulate an action plan with a. reLrabilitation package to tobacco farrners wh.ich rnay

cost around Rs.6,5OO to Rs.7,OOO crores.

As regards to staternent given in Para 12 of the WritPe-tition, it is to subrnit that in India, about 10 distincttypes of tobaccos o"re"r.growrr in 15 states. The entireprodr-rction of B3O rn.kgs, tLrr-rs does not pertain to FCV

tobacco and include 52O rn.kgs of Non-FCV tobaccos likeBidi, Chewing, Hookah, Cigar and Cheroot tobaccos etc.,

grown in various states of India. \

Tobacco Board has tkre rnandate to regulate production,curing and rnarketing of only Flue Cured Virginia tobacco

as. per Tobacco Board Act, 7975. Non Flue Cured Virginiatobaccos prodr-rction .1d rnarketing viz., Bidi, Chewing,

Hookah, Burley, Natu, Oriental, CLreroot, Cigar and Snuff inIndia are not regulated by any Governrnent Agency.

Because Flue Cured Virginia tobacco is a regulated crop,

the Flue Cr-rred Virginia tobacco production is lrrore or less

steady witLr cornpound annual growth rate of O.7Ooh during

the last 6 years. The details of Flue Cured Virginia tobacco

production in India are as follows:

Crop Season Total production (M.Kgs)

2008-09 3L7.942009-to 323.252010-11 30 1. 10

20tt-72 266.99

20t2-13 270.50

20t3-r4 31s.95

72.

-374-

13. Thp production of Non Flue Cured Virginia tobacco wl-rich

account for 670/o of total production on the other hand hadgrowrr at L4.3o/o colnpound annual growth rate in tLre last 6

yedrs puslring up total India production of tobacco to over

8OQ rn.kgs. About 95o/o total production of Non Flue CuredVirginia tobacco is consu.rned within the country and only5o/o of production is exported, wLrile 79o/o of Flue CuredVirginia tobacco production is exported and 2lo/o only isused in domestic rnanufacture of cigarettes.Non Flue Cured Virginia tobacco prodrrction details-

Crop Season Tota1 production (M.Kgs)

2004-o9 3032009-ro 3692010-11 5302071-12 53020L2-ts 5362013-74 520

It is subrnitted that, in this background, the healthconcerns arising out of tobacco cultivation and consurnptionof all these tobaccos shall have to be considered in a holisticrnalrner. Singting out FCV cultivation in Karnataka forsubjecting tLre srnall and rnediurn growers to furtherrestrictions, depriving thern of Governrnent assistance in thenafire of Lrealth activisrn rnay be discrirninately and violativeof Article 14 of Indian Constitution.

The averrnents made at Para no.13 of the Writ petitionare baseless and not correct. The Petitioner while quotingthg research paper in Bangladesh is hypothesizing thesituration in India. As stated in the para no.13 the Tobaccofarrning is taken up in rrrore and more fertile iand andreplacing the food crops and cereals crops thereby affectingthe food security to the growers is not true. The tobacco is

i.Fpreferred by the growers due to its drought resistance and. ,-:

L4.

15.

- 375-

suitability for growing under rain fed conditions whereasotLrer crops required high levels of irrigation.

It is subrnitted that Tobacco cultivation in India is rnostlytak'en Lrp in rain fed areas and in rnarginal/ less fertilelands. As stated by the petitioner that tLre tobacco farminginvolving large nurnber of clrildren q,oting exarnple ofBangladesh is totally wrong as such thre Tobacco Board isinsisting the growers at the tirne of registration to subrnitdeclaration stating that."'No child labour is used in anytobacco operation". Regarding ernployrnent of wornen in Biditobacco processing it is to state that the Bidi tobacco is notunder tLre purview of tkre Tobacco Board Act. contrary tothe staternents in this para, FCV tobacco growing areas areweil developed and the farrners are prospering well withirnproved standards of living. The farrners are assured ofrnaxirnurn returns frorn tobacco than any other agriculturalcrop and hence are taking r- p tobacco cultivation by choice.

The averrri.ents rnade at para-14 of the writ petition,tLrat the tobacco growing leads to deforestation is notcorrect. Flue Cured virginia tobacco farrners are using woodfrorn private plantations and agricultural waste as the rnainsource of fuel for cr-rring of leaf tobacco but not entire frornforest wood. The Petitioner had conveniently left thefollowing staternents contained in the research paper quotedby hirn "Tobacco curing and Fuel Efficiency in Karnataka,India" publishred by Nayanataa S.Nayak

R,f,A>'r'obacco curing in Karnataka requires nearly7 ,OO,OOO tons of fuel wood. every year.

F A very srna1l percentage of wood used for curing iscollected frorn Forest Departrnents with the restcoming from private plantations and possiblynatura] forests.

16.

17.

-;\+c -

.,> Fuel wood is r.rsed for curing75"/o of tobacco while

" the coffee husk is used for curing 2Oo/o of tobacco

and 5o/o by other sottrces such as rrtaize pods,

paddy husk, coconut husk, cashew kernels,": tobacco sterns/roots. A60/" of barn holders tlse a

single sorlrce of fue1.

It is to subrnit that the agricultural waste (fue1 wood)

frorn old coffee plantations and coconut plantations are

sorlrced frorn adjacent coorg & Hassan DistrictreSpectively. The rernaining 35o/o of tobacco is curedr- sing Eucalyptus stalks and other waste wood frorncaptive cultivation in Kolar, Channarayapatna &

frChtarnarajanagar areas... Agents in these districts sr-rpply

this rnateriaL to the tobacco farrners in the Mysore and

Hassan Districts.

It is subrnitted that, at tLre tirne of granting registration,the grower should subrnit declaration stating that "No forestwobd is used for tobacco curing". Board encottragingplanting of trees for tobacco curing by registered growers by

insisting that all the registered growers shall undertake to

Ot+a a minimum of 1O Rlants dr-rring crop season.

As stated by the Petitioner that use of severa-I chernical.

pesticides and fertilizers are heavily applied in tobacco

farrning is also not true. Tobacco is less susceptible to pests

an{. diseases cornpa-red to other crops and needs rninirnalusg of Crop Protection Agents (CPAs): The haoards narratedby Petitioner could trappen becamse of cultivation any

agricultural crop and tobacco alone cannot be blarned.

Tohacco Board is encouraging the growers on application ofbio.pesticid.es and. for':. irnplernenting integrated pest

18.

19.

37+ -:

'',:

rranagernent rneasures to restrict the agrocLremical

application and to avoid pesticide residues in the FIue CuredVirginia tobacco.

20. The allegation rnade by the Petitioner that due to tobacco

cultivation there is a d.epletion in the nutrient status in the

soil leading to soil degradation and heavy dependence on

fertilizers is not correct as sucLr the tobacco farrners are

undertaking in-situ gre.en rnanuring and applying bio-

fertllizers to reduce the dependence on cLrernical fertilizersand tkrereby enhance soil health by enriching tLre soil carbon

status in the soi1.

21. "Tobacco was introduced into India in 1605 by Portguese.

FCV tobacco cultivation in India was started in 1903 and is

continr.ring till date. Around 36 rnillion people are dependent

on.tkris crop for their livelihood. One lakh farrners and three

la1i-hs farrn labourer. .,, *. engaged. in FCV tobacco

cqltivation. One cannot forget these social realities and cut

tLre life line of all these people dependent on this crop. This

will result in a social disaster. Social and economic

irnplications of weaning out the farrners frorn tobacco

cqltivation need to be studied and rehabilitation plans are

to .be drawn r.rp for implementation. Men, rnaterials and

rnoney in good arnounts are needed. for this.

22. .rlt is sr.rbrnitted that tobacco is a lega1 crop and growers

are- free to cultivate it going by econornics of cultivation.

Only FCV tobacco cultivation is regularized as per Tobacco

Board Act 1975 and cultivation of all oth.er types of tobaccos

like Bidi, chewing etc., are not regulated. Tobacco Board

r-rsing tLre penal provisions and penalties for excess /unar. tho rized. prod.uction, is regulating tkre production of

FCV tobacco grown in the country.

37q -fertilizers and IPM rnethods or encouraged to conserveenerg/ by adopting ener$/ conservation rnettrods. Ttms, itcan be seen as sr-:.stainable agricultr.rral developrnent ratherth; incentiv izingtobacco cultivation.

26. It is sr.rbrnitted that, the total loans availed by the Flgecured virginia tobacco farrners is around Rs.1,goo croreswhtle the Tobacco Board extends the subsidies in few a-reasfor'adopting new tecLrnologies of Good. Agricr:ltural Practicesto an extent of around Rs.2.63 crores which is very rrreagerwhen cornpared. The said arnorrnt is rnet by the Boardonly frorn the penalties collected frorn the growers whohaye prodr-rced excess tobacco than the an:thorised quota.Governrnent investrnents (LIC investrnents) in tobaccobusiness does not have any relation to tobacco cr,rltivation orsr-rbsidizing tobacco farrners and is or.rt of context.

27. 'The averrnent rnade by the petitioner at para-16 of thewrit Petition that tlre sth Respondent Tobacco Boardestablished through Tobacco Board Act, lgTS when corpAwas not in existence is true. without Tobacco Board., Fluecr-rred virginia tobacco crop will not be regulated and thecultivation of Flue cured virginia tobacco by the growerswor-rld have proliferated as other Non-FCV tobaccos. whileregr.rlating the tobacco cultivation, the Board is safeguardingtLre interests of farrners as enshrined in the Act and alsowoiking in line with the policies of FCTC.

.:

28. The averrnents made at para- 17 of the writ petition thatin extending subsidies the tobacco farrners are enjoyingGovernrnent support in terrns of subsidies is not tne. It isthe- Board who with a view to induce the farrners to producesafer and clean tobacco extending subsidy frorn internalsou.rces and not drawing any grant in aid frorn centralGovernrnent. The staternent that Tobacco Board has been

I

360 -

giving out huge subsidies to tobacco growers all over country

is wrong. As explained Tobacco Board is concerned with

FCV tobacco only wLrich is grown in Andkrra Pradesh and

Karnataka. As explained. in para 8, the expenditure of Board

in t+.e forrn of subsidt.r t:.a rreager Rs.2.63 crores per year.

29. Tkre averrnents .rrr.O. ,., the Writ Petition that Union

Governrnent and Tobacco Board each year annotlnce the

Minirnurn Support Price to protect the interests of Flue

Cu-r-ed. Virginia tobacco growers is correct. But the MinirnurnSupport Prices for tobacco were announced by the

Governrnent of India based on the recolnlrrendation of

Cornrnission of Agricultural Costs and Prices upto 2OO7-Oa

crop season. Since the year 2OO8-O9, the Government hasfr

not announced the Minilqurn Support Price (MSP) for Flue

Cured Virginia tobacco crop. The Cornrnission for

Agricr-rtural Costs and Prices (CACP) had stopped

recolrrlrrending rninirnurn support prices for tobacco

altogether since 2012- 13.

-

30. 'The version of the Petitioner that the tobacco is one of the

crops covered under the Price Stabilization Fund Scherne to

provide firrancial relief to the growers when thre price fa1ls

befbw a certain level is not true. The Governrnent of Indiaha3 set up the Price Stabilization Fund in March 2OO3 for

the benefit of the growers of plantation crops (Coffee, Tea

and Rubber) and agricultural crop tobacco. But the growers

of tobacco Lrave not joined the scherne as the scherne was

rroq beneficial to tLrern and the scherne is not underirnplernentation.

31. It is subrnitted that, thereop.d.ration 'for FCV tobaccoFIe.nce, the staternent of 'the

amthorities are prornoting

is no price support prograrn inas alleged by the Petitioner.Petitioner that tkre Respondent

tobaeco growing rather than

- 3zl"-

encol-l.raging tobacco farrners to switch to other crops is notcor:rect. Tobacco farrner on tris own is bearing all productionrisks and price risks and is cr:ltivating tobacco withogt anyrna"jor Governrnent support. FCV tobacco production inIndia is contributing Rs.4,o64 crores in foreign exchange inthe forrn of exports and Rs.17,855 crores in terrns of exciseincorne on cigarettes.

, ,:

32. The version of the Petitioner that the global trend hasrnoved towards redr-rction of Governrnent support for tobaccogrowing tLrror-rgh subsidies is totally wrong. The EuropeanCountries have not phased or. t the subsidies for cqltivationof iobacco. Many developed countries like usA have notstarted irnplernenting provisions of FCTC. Ali the FCVgrowing countries worldwide, viz., USA, Bra-il, Zirnbabwe,Argantania, Tanzanria etc., are increasing their productionevery year. In these circumstances, India alone can go onwith irnplementation of robacco control programrnes andreduce area under cultivation of tobacco. It has to follow thetrans-national policy in the interest of tobacco growingcornrnunity.

33. It is subrnitted that the averrnents rnade at Para 20 aad2L of the Writ Petition that the provision of sr-rbsidies totobacco farrners by the Tobacco Board is cornpletely againstthe provisions of COTPA is baseless as such the TobaccoBoard Act carne in existence in 1975, at that tirne ttreCOTPA is not in the force. The Tobacco Board Act isconcerned with regulation of tobacco cultivation (rawtobacco) as the COTPA rnainly deals witLr dernand reductionrneasr-lres for tobacco products. These are two parallelenactrnents and thre provisions of these Acts are not incontrad.iction.

34.

35.

36.

I

- 3ra-

"'It is strbrnitted that, as per Section g(l)(a) of robaccoBoard Act,. L975, Board regulates the production and curingof Flue cured virginia tobacco having regard to the dernandfor tobacco in India and abroad, rnarketability of differenttypps of Flue cured virginia tobacco so as to ensure fair andremltnerative prices to tobacco farrners.

It is submitted that, every year cornrnittee on production& Production control (Rule 33A) of robacco Board. lays downProduction Policy and. fixes crop size for different soil regionsin Andhra PradesLr and Karnataka taking into considerationvalious factors specified in clatrse (a) of sub Section (2) otsection 8 of robacco Board Act, tgzs like the dernand forflue cured virginia tobacco in India and abroad and thernarketability of different tobaccos etc.

It is strbrnitted that the Registration cornrnittee forgrowers and others will lay down the criteria for registrationor renewal of registration of growers of virginia tobacco,nuiseryrnen as per Rule 33 A (2) and 33-D(1) of the TobaccoBoard Rules 1976, based on the production policy laiddown. The Registration cornrnittee d.ecides on area to beregistered per barn and. quota to be amtho rized. taking intoconsideration the nurnber of licensed barns and productivityt"rrct. of tobacco basin$.' on the area -wise targets fixed.Accordingly the registered growers are allocated a.

production quota in terms of fixed kilograrns for hisbarn(s) and number of hectares of area to be cultivatedfor.his/her licensed barn(s) and are monitored closely tocoinply with the sarne.

FCIIC and alternatives to tobacco

$h. wEIo Frarnework convention on Tobacco control(wFo FCTC) enshrings a cornprehensive range ofrnultispectraL evidence-based measures that airn to reduce

37.

38.

39.

tobacco t:se and exposure to tobacco srnoke. At the same

tirne it also recogflizes the need to prornote econornicallywiable alternatives to tobacco Prodrrction as a way toprevent possible adverse sociai and econornic irnpacts on

populations whose livelihoods depend on tobacco

prod.r.rction. This corrcern is reflected in several parts of tLre

WHO FCTC, including its Prearnble and paragraph 6 of

Article 4 (General obligations), as well as in Article 17, which

is dedicated specifically to tkris rnatter.

Article 17

'Provision of support for econornically viable alternative

activities Parties sha-ll, in cooperation with each other and

witLr cornp etent international and re gional intergovernrnental

organizations, prornote, 8S apPropriate, econotlrically

wid.Lte alternatiwes for tobacco workers, grou7ers and, as

the'case rnay be, indiwidrral sellers.

It is sgbrnitted tLrat, from the above, it is clear ttrat the

rnandate of FCTC is to help farmers cope with a reduction in

d"erhand by find.ing econorrically sustainable alternatives to

tobacco farrning wkrich are cu.rrent and relevant, and based

on scientific, tecLrnical and econorric considerations' The

strategies shall take into consideration local ctllture, as well

as,social, econornic, political and legal factors and shall be in

consonarrce with nationally developed strategies for

sl-stainable developrnent. Ministry of Health and Farnily

welfare is thqs lIlandated to implernent the objective of

Developrnent of crop Alternative to Tobacco in India through

"ResearcLr and Training on alternative crops and livelihoods"'

It is sr.rbrnitted. that, under tkre auspices of the NTCP, the

Ministry of Health and Farnily welfare cornrnissioned ttre

central Tobacco Research Institute (CTRI) to conduct a

40.

I

- 3Eh

three-year pilot study into alternative cropping systerns to

beedi and chewing tobaccos (Non-Flue Cured Virginiatobaccos). Flowever no research project to identify and

develop suitable alternative crops to Flue Cured Virginiatob'acco and to test their suitability to different soil regions

-v-

by conducting field trials.:as envisaged by the working group

on econornically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing(in relation to Articles 17 and 18 of the WHO FrarneworkConvention on Tobacco Control) was taken up by Ministry ofHealth & Farnily Welfare so far. There were no budgetallocations for sucLr projects under "National Tobacco

Corrtrol Prograrnrne (NTCP)" so far.

Svsternqtic approactr required for tobacco crop srrbstitrrtion

41.-'tt i. subrnitted that, Tobacco in India, as in rrrany other

countries, yields higher net retr-rrns per unit of land thanrnost other casLr crops, and substantially rnore than food

crops. Currently, there are a few specialized crops in variousareas that provide sirnilar incornes, but it is estirnated thatthe-se crops would not rernain rernl:nerative if totalprqduction is increased. The econornics of alternative crops

is generally based on experirnents carried out on a lirnitedarea at researckr stations under optirnal conditions. More

detailed research work is need.ed. on a wider scale at farrners'field level before firrn recornmendations can be rnade abor.rt

I thern. In general, under farrners'field conditions, rnost otherI alternative crops are currently not as remLlnerative as

tobacco. Shou1d tobacco farrners need to diversify into othercrops, tLrey are likely to suffer econornic hardship.

42. hlternative crops also require high levels of irrigation.Tobacco is preferred due to its drought resistance andsui.tability' for growing under rainfed conditions. Other

+1ie

prciblerns associated with substitution by other crops

include tLre capital invested in specialized facilities createdfor* tobacco processing, whiclr cannot be used for othercrops; the difficulties of finding substitute crops for rainfedareas.

43. -.,"ilLrr. s crop substitution is an extrernely risky process. For

a rernrlnerative crop like'' tobacco, where the financial andernployrnent stakes are extrernely b.igl- , if poorly executed, itcan resrllt in destitution and penury of farrners who once

Lrad a prosperous and successful source of livelihood. Thus,a planned and systernatic approach, encornpassing thefollowing, need.s to be undertaken before arriving at anydecision on crop substitution:- Large scale financing and big initiative frorn Governrnent

- Cornrnissioning of cornprehensive research studies toidentify sr.ritable substitute crops - equally remr.tnerative

with a ready dornestic/export rnarket.

Field trials, in different tobacco growing zones, to

val.idate iong terrn sustainability of the identified.substitute crops.

.Extensive farrner training prograrnrnes to irnpartknowledge/skills regarding cultivation of the substitute

. crops.

'Phased introduction of the substitute crops/subsidizedinpr-rts.

Crop alternatiwes to Flue Cured Virginia (FC\/) Tobacco

44. As the dernand for tobacco products worldwide is on

d.eeline becanrse of anti srnoking carnpaigns and

irnplernentation of provisions of FCTC, in order to prepare

tobacco growers for the fi.rture scenario and to create

awareness. abor.rt alternative crops, Tobacco Board in

col'taboration with CTRI conducted two national serninars on

I

- 38(,, -

"Alternative crops to Flue Cured Virginia tobacco" on 19tt-2Otr, Septernber 2OL1 at Central Tobacco Researclr Institttte,Rr..1af.rnundry for Andhra Pradesh and on 17tt' October 20lrLat Mysore for Karnataka.

.o

45. "In tLre serninar conducted in Andhra Pradesh it is opined

th.at no single crop is as rernrlnerative as tobacco and tLre

tobacco farrners were advised to take up integrated farrningsystern and integrated cropping systern and cultivate variouseconornically viable crops as recoilrrnended a-Long withr

integrated agri-based industries viz., cattle rearing, sheep

rearing, verrnin-cornpost-making, silk worrn rearing,rnustrroorn production, apiculture.

, The following crops and cropping systerns trave been*yt

suggested as alternatives;: to Flue Cured Virginia tobacco inthe serninar.

Flue CuredVirginiaTobaccogrowirig

area'

Soil type Alternatiwe s to tobaccoI{harif Rabi

NorthernBlack Soils

(N.B.s)

Heavy blacksoils

(Vertisols)

Maize, Paddy, Cotton, Soybean,Redgrarn

Bengalgrarn,Paddy,

Mustard,Fodder Crops

Annrral C Susarcane. Perennial: Oil PaknSouthernBlack Soils(s.B.s)

Mediurnblack soils(Inceptisols/Alfisols)

Greengrarn, Pigeonpea

+Greengrarn, Sesarnurn, FodderCrops

Bengalgrarn,Maize,

Pigeonpea,Castor,

Orchards, Social Forestry (Eucalvptl. s. sr.rbabulSouthernLight Soils

(s.L.s)

Deep sandyclay loarns(Alfiso1s)

Pigeonpea + Groundnut/ Greengrarn, SesarnurnGroundnut, Greengrarn- Castor, Maize,

Blackgrarn, Mr-rstard, Pigeonpe&, Fodder crops,Social Forestry (Erlcalyptus)

NorthernLight Soils

(N.L.s) T

Sands and

sandy loarns

(Alfisols)

Annual Crops: Zero tillageHybrid Seed Production inSugarcane, Pigeon peaFodder Crops.

Maize (Kharif, Rabi),Maize, Chilli, Cotton,+Maize-Groundnut/

3g+ -

Perennial Crops: Oil Pakn + Cocoa, Coconut +Cocoa, Cashew, Mango, Citrus, Guava, Papaya,Eucalvptus, Barnboo.

The following crops/cropping systerns have been suggested

as alterqatives to Flue Cured Virginia tobacco in Karnataka in tLre

serninar--bond.ucted at *r"ot.. .,

o H.D.Kote area - Cotton, Turrneric, Sugarcane, Banana

and Gingero Hunsrrr area - Ragi, Field Bean, Maize, Horticulture crops

(Sapota, Tarnarind, Banana, Mango, Coconrlt) attd

Sericulture. K.R.Nagar area - Rice, Sugarcane, Coconut and Vegetables

. Periyapatna area Maize, Ginger, Turrneric, Arecanut,

Coconut and Banana. Shirnoga area - Arecanut, Chilli, Cotton and Maize

. Rarnnathapura and Aiakalgud area (Hassan Dist.,)

Ginger, Rice, Potato, Arecamrt, Coconut and Maize.

46. Tobacco Board has initiated the following action plan toirnplernent educational and awareness prograrnmes on

cultivation of alternative crops to Fh-re Cured Virginia

tobacco.

Printed. a booklet on crop rrranagement practices of

d.ifferent alternative.grops vrz.z ry;,.aize, oil palrn, cotton,

pigeon p€&, chilli, paddy, sllgarcane, rnustard,

cLrickpea, soyabeart, castor, black graln and green gram

and other crops to tobacco and distributed to all

extension staff and. growers for d.issernination of

Knowledge.

I

- 397-

An -overall view and analysis of r1ral econorny, in rnajor

tobacco producing erreas, land r-rtilization patterns, irrigationfacilities, rainfall patterns, incidence of cyclones, and

con'bistent rnarket support for the alternative crops inadv,prse growing conditions are the key factors to rehabilitate

an{ adopt tkre Flue CuredVirginia growers to other crops.

Monitoring of striftine to alternative crops

It .involves identification of growers and provision of

tectrnical sr-rpport to these growers in association with State

Government Departrnents dealing with Agricultr.rre, Horticulture,Sericulture and CTRI for providing tlre knowledge and concrete

plans foi- cultivation of alternative crops and rnarketing of theproduceorand provision of exteitsion help reqrrired by Tobacco

Board i.r,tfr. transition years. "i

47. As rnentioned above, huge research effort, large scale

financing and big government initiative is necessary to wean

aw'py farrners to alternative crops. TLr,e first step is to build.' sciLntific evidence by research on critical and cross cutting

issles Hk; alternative cropping system to tobacco and

a-lternative livelihoods for people engaged in the tobacco

sector.*.t

*YF

'- 37q -

49. _The allegation rnade by the Petitioner at para 23 of the

Writ Petition that the objectives of Tobacco Board Act, 1975

are in cornplete contradiction and opposite to coTPA isentirely wrong. The Tobacco Board Act is concerned with

reS,{rlation of tobacco production and rnarketing of raw

tobacco to ensure fair arid remunerative prices to growers.

In add.ition, it also prornotes export of tobacco prodr.rcts. On

the otlrer hand, coTPA is only concerned wittr dernand

redgction rneasures (related to production and rnarketing of

toba-cco prod"r-rcts) for reducing tobacco llse within India.

Wkrile Tobacco Board is concerned with supply side of raw

tobacco, COTPA is concerned. with d.ernand side reduction

and qse of tobacco. Thgs, these two enactrnents are not

contrad.icting each otkrer. The version of tLre Petitioner that'i ,

thel' objectives of both Acts are contradictory is wrong.,. '-'

Sirnilarly the averrnents rnade at paras 25 and 31 of the Writ

Petition are also rnisleading.

49. The allegations rnade at Para No.24 of the Writ Petition

that the Tobacco Board has not effectively rnaintained the

registry of tobacco farrners tLrereby allowing illegal tobacco

farrning to rr' n arnuck is not trr. e & correct. The rnandate of

Tobacco Board is to regr-rlate Production, curing and

rnarketing'of Flue Cured Virginia tobacco in India as per

To$acco Board Act, 1971. As sr1ch the details of eactr and

every grower taking up the cultivation of Flue Cured Virginia

tobacco in Ind.ia are being recorded and their cr:ltivation is

rnonitored at each stage by Tobacco Board til1 rnarketing of

entire produce. The Tobacco wkrich is produced in excess

of ihe quota given and withor-rt registration is considered as

unarlthorised Production.

50. .TLre measllres und.ertaken by Tobacco Board to prevent

exqess/ unamtho rized. prod'uction or unamthortzed

construction of barns u-r.'"," follows:

I

,3c[D

r) E.xce ss / IJnamtLrorized pro duction :

Every year Board is taking up focused regulation

carnpaigns dr-.ring tkre tirne of planting of tobacco

d.issr.rad"ing tLre growers to go for excess plantations or

take up tobacco cultivation unauthorisedly.

. During tLrese carnpaigns growers are being educated on

the irnpact of excess/ unamthorised production on

. prices.:

o Publicity materials like parnpLrlets, wall writings,posters, amdio rnaterial are being used in these

' carnpaigns.o* As a preventive action, Auction Superintendents are

,, organizing to identify all registered growers who are

habituated for planting in excess areas/taking up

staggered plantations producing and selling excess

quantities, and unregistered growers/owners of' rrnamthorized barns in their jurisdiction who are taking' up plantations witlrout registration during the previous- 2 to 3 years and issue notices advising tLrern to refrain

frorn excess/unamthorized cultivation.

.o The Fie1d Assistant of a cluster and concerned Field

= Offi"". are duty botrnd to identify the violations ofproduction/ any unamtLrorized constrttction of barns intheir jurisdiction and report the sarne to the AuctionSr-rperintendent .

..- AU growers going for staggered plantations and planting.- late in paddy fallows are being identified and issued

notices. They all are being black listed for supply of

inputs and coverage under any subsidy scLrerne.

Ca

r"it

,.,

II)

*3ql-

Excess tobacco/unamthorized sales are subject to lewy ofadditional arnounts as decided by Govt. of India, whichact as deterrents and disincentives for taking up excess/

unamthorise d cultivation.

Constrrction of unduttrorized barns :

. Tobacco Board is conducting grou.p rneetings, village

leve1 rneetings involving viilage elders, growers,

panchayat level officials, educating and advising the,,growers against constntction of unamtkrorised barns and

to abide by Tobacco Board Act and Rules.

. TLre growers, who are starting constrt. ction of new barns

-without licence frorn Board are served witLr notices to

.,stop construction of barns or else the concerned will be

liable for actiorr as per the Tobacco Boar Act and Rules'

. Sirnultaneously, concerned revenue amthorities are being

requested to stop construction of barns/or initiate steps

-for dernolition of constrr.ction as per the laws of the land.

.In respect of registered growers who krave taken up'construction

of unauthorised barns withor.rt any licenses,

"lnotices will be issued to stop such construction forthwith..and inforrning tkrat 'ttk.i. renewal of registration for

regular barns will be refi.rsed, if they do not cornply with

the instrr. ctions given.

.-lIf tLre registered grower proceed with construction,

, ignoring the notices given, tLreir registration is being

refr.r.sed by categorizitlg thern under ineligible categories

'i.e., growers indulging in violation of Tobacco Board Act,

Rules & Regr.rlations or cancelled.,::

I

-3q 2

.',Fie1d Staff are conducting Mal.:azarnarnas, whiterecordiprg the violation in video/photos for sendingproposals for prosecution with all evidence.

51. Jt is subrnitted that the Act is silent on theprg.cedures/guidelines to be followed for sale of excesstobacco produced by the registered growers and also tobaccogrown by unamtLrorised growers in violation of the provisionsof tlre Act. Section 25 of the Act, only provides for levy ofpenalties st. ch as imprisonrnent or a fine or with both forcontravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rules(wliich includ.e production of excess tobacco or lrnautborized,pr-oduction of tobacco) by way of prosecution with the priorapBroval of Governrnent of India.

52. *i- Though the Act : providing for prosecr.rting theviolators of the law, it is silent on what Lras to be done asregards to tLre disposal tobacco that is produced in violationof the Act and which is perishable in nature. since, this isan econornic product and shail not be allowed to go waste,laws of natural justice and equitable consid.erations are to beapplied in disposal of these tobaccos. In view of this,Governrnent after due deliberations and basing onexperience gained over years is perrnitting tLre Board by wayof i?azette notification to arrange for sale of sqch tobaccosubject to levy of additional fee.

54-', It is subrnitted tkrat, by the year 2oo2 in Karnataka, there'l

J *. about 78,7s1 registered growers and by 2ol2-L3 there\ are 42,289 registered growers this is d.r.re to regqlarisation of\'l 30;621 unamthorised barns during the year 2oo4-os andI zoos-o6 on the directions of Governrnent of India.\\_

55. The atlegations rnade at para 2g of the writ petitionthdt the FCTC in relation to banning tobacco sr.rbsidies andalliiwing prornotion of tobacco through the Tobacco Board

- 3q3--.

rrnder the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 arnounts to clear

violation of statutory provisions is not correct. Becamse, the

wHo Frarnework convention on Tobacco control (wHO

FC)IIC) enshrines a. cornprehensive range of rnultispectral

evidence-based. Ineasures' that airn to reduce tobacco tlse

and expostlre to tobacco smoke. At the sa-rne tirne it also

recognizes tLre need to prornote econorrlically viable

alternatiwes to tobacco production as a way to prevent

possible adverse social and econornic irnpacts on

popr,rlations wLrose livelihoods depend on tobacco

prod.r-rction. This concern is reflected in several parts of the

WHO FCTC, inch.rding its Prearnble and paragraph 6 of

Arti.cle 4 (General obligations), as well as in Article l-7, whicLr

is dedicated specifically to. this rnatter.

56. It is sr-rbrnitted tLrat the Tobacco Board is set up under

the Tobacco Board Act, L975 involved in various functions

like regulating the crop size, control of excess production,

propagating the Good. Agricultural Practices, ensuring

reriiunerative prices to the farrners, irnplementing trade

rela.ted controls and facilitate buik export of tobacco.

57. Tobacco Board as a policy had stopped issuing new

totracco growing licenses. It is not in favou.r of the

lncreaslng area under cr,rltivation of tobacco. Tobacco Board

is rnore focused on vertical expansion of tobacco cultivation

i.e., increasing the productivity per unit area as against

horizontal expansion of tobacco. Tobacco Board is not

giving any licences for constmction of new barns as the

available infrastrr-rcture is rnore than enor:gh to produce the

crop size fixed bY the Board.

h.:t!.t

'it']iii1!

-.,t

-l

I

--3q 4*

58. * Ttre Board in general is not extending any subsidies to

the Flue Gured Virginia Tobacco farmers except in very few

Model Project areas where experirnental trails are taken up

with new technologies as a part of Good AgricultqralPractices. The tobacco prodr-rction is regulated by Board and

wtlich pressures the fhrrners to go for cqltivation of

alternative crops to certain extent and is being adopted by

farrners. Any other staternent not specifically addressed

herein is trereby denied.

it

. Wherefore, this Hon'Icle Court be pleased to disrniss the above

Writ Petition wittr costs, in the interest of justice

Place: Bdnsaloreoat"Tfj)7{ Counsel for Respondent No.S'" (Krishna S.Dixit)

*Yit

f+

26

-- 3?-f-IN TI{E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

( Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. 55697/2O14 (GM-REE:EILI

BETuIEENCancer Patients Aid Association

ANDState of Karnatakaand Others

...Petitioner

...Respondents

\/ERIFYING AFF'IDAVITI, Sri.K.Narasirnhaiah S/o Late Kadraiah Age: 59 years, workingas Manager(Technical), Tobacco Board, Directorate of Auctions,1/9, CSI Cornpound, IV Floor, Unity Br.rilding Annexe, Bengalurr.-56C- O27_ do hereby solernnly affirrn and state on oath as ttnder:

1. That, I arn the amthorized to swear in tLris Affidavit of the Sth

Respondent Board and I know the facts and circttrnstances ofthe sarne. I have amthority to represent the 5tr, Respondent inthe Legal Proceedings. Therefore, I arn swearing to thisaffidavit in support of the accotnpanying Staternent ofObjections

2. T}:.at, tlre contents of paragraphs 7 to8- in the accornpanying

Staternent of Objections are trr. e and correct to the best of rny

knowledge and belief.

3. That, tlre docurnentscopies of the originals.

Place: Be4galpruDate:1\f

/ C

Identified by Me

\oat Annexures-R 1 @-k& aaze ttre tme

/1w'Jv>-

DEPONENTIV1ANAGER (TECHNICAL)

TOBACCO BOARDBANGALORE

Advocate