Orissa High Court upholds statewide ban on sale of chewing tobacco
The Odisha health department barred making, storing, moving and selling food containing tobacco or nicotine, including chewing tobacco. A Cuttack-based chewing-tobacco maker challenged the ban. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on 21 August 2026 and upheld the ban.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The writ petitions stand dismissed and the 21 January 2026 prohibition as enforcement of Regulation 2.3.4 remains in force, with separate GST cases to be decided under their own law.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the State issued Notification No.2065/H&F.W. dated 21.01.2026 covering manufacture, packing, storage, transport, distribution and sale of food containing tobacco or nicotine, including scented chewables sold as gutkha or pan masala.
The High Court recorded that the petitioner firm limited its challenge to chewing tobacco, with or without additives, flavours and scents, and that an interim order dated 9 March 2026 had directed that no punitive, penal or criminal action be taken against it till the next date.
The High Court recorded that a clarification dated 29.01.2026 kept tobacco-free pan masala outside the ban, and that GST authorities issued a letter dated 30.01.2026 and show-cause notices dated 05.02.2026 about registration review.
The High Court held that tobacco in food is barred by Regulation 2.3.4, that the notification was enforcement under Section 30(2)(d) of the 2006 Act, and that the writ petitions stood dismissed with interim protection vacated.
What the record says
“Regulation 2.3.4 provides that tobacco and nicotine shall not be used as ingredients in any food products.”
[name withheld] vs State Of Odisha, judgment dated 21.08.2026, reasoning paragraph as printed on Indian Kanoon — read the full text
No complaining victim
Making and selling chewing tobacco to willing adult buyers harmed no complaining victim; the State punished the act through a sales ban backed by penal consequences.
What we could not confirm
District is given as Cuttack as the seat of the deciding court and the petitioner's base; the notification applies statewide. No separate printed sentence of fine or imprisonment was imposed in this writ decision.