MP High Court Halts Coercive Action Against Lounge Serving Herbal Hookah, Says Apprehension Of Misuse Doesn't Justify Blanket Ban
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted relief to 'The High Tribe' lounge by restraining authorities from taking any coercive action against it for serving herbal, tobacco and nicotine-free hookah. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 213] The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that the applicable legal provisions are aimed at prohibiting the smoking of tobacco and related substances and are not...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted relief to 'The High Tribe' lounge by restraining authorities from taking any coercive action against it for serving herbal, tobacco and nicotine-free hookah. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 213]
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that the applicable legal provisions are aimed at prohibiting the smoking of tobacco and related substances and are not intended to cover herbal preparations lacking nicotine or tobacco.
The court referred to Section 3(ea) introduced after amendment to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, and said that the legislative intent is directed towards establishments facilitating smoking of tobacco or similar substances, and not towards herbal preparations devoid of tobacco and nicotine.
Thus, the bench held:
"In the absence of any material demonstrating that the petitioner is serving tobacco-based hookah, the mere apprehension of possible misuse, without concrete findings or inspection-based violation, cannot justify an absolute restraint amounting to a de facto blanket ban on herbal hookah".
The court directed the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner-firm solely on the ground of serving herbal, tobacco-free and nicotine-free hookah, provided that the petitioner strictly adheres to and complies with all applicable statutory provisions, including but not limited to COTPA, the relevant rules, the Cigarettes and Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Madhya Pradesh) Amendment Act, 2023, municipal laws, fire safety regulations, licensing conditions, and any other law for the time being in force.
It also directed:
1. The petitioner shall ensure, as a continuing obligation, that no tobacco, nicotine, narcotic substance, psychotropic substance, drug, or any other prohibited or unlawful material is stored, possessed, served, mixed, promoted, or permitted within the premises under the guise or description of herbal hookah, and that the business activity remains confined strictly to herbal, tobacco-free and nicotine-free products.
2. The petitioner shall maintain proper physical segregation of smoking and non-smoking areas in strict conformity with the applicable statutory rules, including display of mandatory signage, compliance with seating capacity requirements, and adherence to all safety norms.
3. The competent authorities shall remain at liberty to conduct inspection(s) of the premises at any reasonable time to verify compliance with the statutory provisions and the conditions stipulated herein, and the petitioner shall extend full cooperation for such inspections.
4. In the event any violation of statutory provisions, licence conditions, or the directions contained in the high court order is found during inspection or otherwise, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law, including initiation of proceedings for suspension, cancellation, or revocation of licence, imposition of penalty, or any other permissible action, after following due process of law.
Per the petition, the lounge has a seating capacity of over 30 people. It maintains a physically segregated smoking zone in compliance with Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 [COTPA], the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Rules, 2004 and the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008.
The lounge claimed that it only serves herbal hookah, which is free from tobacco and nicotine, and that no tobacco-based product is sold or permitted within the premises. The lounge was aggrieved by the communication of the authority threatening closure of the establishment and cancellation of their license on the grounds that hookah service was impermissible.
However, the lounge claimed that the action of the authorities amounted to a blanket prohibition, as per the relevant provisions, "hookah bar as an establishment where people gather to smoke tobacco or other similar products from a community hookah or narghile provided individually".
The counsel for the State argued that the State has enacted amendments to curb the misuse of hookah lounges, as theese establishment may become centres for consumption of prohibited substances under the guise of hookah service.
The bench noted that the core issue was: Can the authorities impose a blanket prohibition on the said lounge for serving herbal, tobacco-free and nicotine-free hokah in the absence of a specific statutory bar?
The bench noted that Section 3(ea) defines the hookah bar as an establishment where people consume tobacco and other similar products from a community hookah or narghile. However, from the provision, the court observed that the provision is directed towards the establishment facilitating smoking og tobacco or similar substances but not towards herbal preparations devoid of tobacco or nicotine.
The court also empahsized on the public health nature of the issue, noting that the regulatory framework under the aforementioned Acts is intended to prevent exposure to tobacco smoke in public places. However, it also noted that under Article 19 (1)(g), restrictions on trade must be reasonable and proportionate with statutory backing.
Emphasizing on the said principles, the bench held, "In the present case, the petitioner has undertaken to comply with all applicable laws and to ensure that only herbal, tobacco-free and nicotine-free hookah is served strictly within the designated smoking area, and that no prohibited substances are introduced. Such an undertaking, coupled with the statutory framework, warrants protection from arbitrary coercive action, subject to compliance and inspection".
Therefore, the authorities cannot absolutely restrain the establishment on the mere apprehension of possible misuse.
Case Title: M/s The High Tribe v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-46523-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 213
For Petitioner: Advocate Krishna Sharma
For State: Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra