Allahabad HC: Bans Hookah Services in Uttar Pradesh Restaurants

• The Allahabad High Court has banned all hookah services in restaurants across Uttar Pradesh.
• The court ruled that providing hookah services violates amended Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules and COTPA 2003.
• This prohibition applies even in designated smoking areas, as 'no service' means no provision of any kind, including hookah.
• The judgment prioritizes the fundamental right to clean air (Article 21) over commercial interests (Article 19(1)(g)).
• Police authorities are empowered under COTPA 2003 to enforce this ban, including search, seizure, and confiscation.

The commercial right to conduct business, protected under Article 19(1)(g), cannot supersede the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air without involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.

The Allahabad High Court has definitively ruled against the operation of hookah services in restaurants across Uttar Pradesh, dismissing a series of petitions that sought legal permission for such establishments. This significant judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary on September 29, 2026, establishes that providing hookah services constitutes a violation of both the amended Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules and the overarching framework of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003). The court's decision clarifies that this prohibition extends even to designated smoking areas within public places.

The legal challenge originated from a restaurant holding a food-service license, which had faced police intervention, including a raid and a preventive order. These actions alleged unauthorized hookah operations, public nuisance, and the provision of hookah to minors. The restaurant, along with others, subsequently petitioned the court, seeking to affirm their right to offer hookah services. However, the High Court unequivocally dismissed all these petitions, thereby reinforcing the Uttar Pradesh hookah bar prohibition.

Central to the court's reasoning was the interpretation of a pivotal 2017 amendment to the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008. This amendment significantly altered Rule 4(3) by replacing the phrase “no other service” with the more absolute “no service.” The bench concluded that this change unequivocally means that no form of service whatsoever—including food, beverages, tobacco products, herbal products, or hookah—can be provided within a designated smoking area. The court emphasized that these areas are intended as limited statutory exceptions to the general ban on smoking in public places, not as extensions of a restaurant's regular service offerings.

The High Court also addressed and rejected the argument that establishments could circumvent the prohibition by preparing hookahs outside the smoking area and allowing customers to operate them independently. The judges noted that the technical preparation of a hookah, involving tasks such as filling the base with water, placing tobacco in the bowl, preparing foil, and heating charcoal, requires specific knowledge and training. Such a process, the court reasoned, cannot realistically function as a self-service model for ordinary patrons. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that the act of providing hookah apparatus, tobacco, and staff assistance for tasks like replenishing charcoal, cleaning ashes, or changing tobacco, undeniably falls under the definition of “service,” making COTPA 2003 hookah services illegal.

A critical aspect of the judgment centered on the fundamental right to clean air, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court firmly held that the commercial right to conduct business, protected under Article 19(1)(g), cannot supersede the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air without involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. This prioritization underscores the court's commitment to public health over commercial interests.

Justice Shekhar B Saraf, who authored the judgment, also included a personal reflection on tobacco smoking, drawing from his own experience in a poem. He highlighted the severe health risks associated with hookah, noting that a single hour-long session, involving approximately 200 puffs, is comparable in harm to smoking 100 cigarettes. Justice Saraf dispelled the common misconception that hookah is less harmful than cigarettes, asserting that it is equally addictive, damaging, and contains the same toxic chemicals. The ruling further clarified that while Food Safety departments and municipal corporations lack jurisdiction to issue specific licenses for hookah bars, police authorities possess the necessary powers under COTPA 2003 to enforce its provisions, including search, seizure, and confiscation, in cases of violation.

Hospitality businesses in Uttar Pradesh must immediately cease all hookah services, as the Allahabad High Court has explicitly ruled them illegal under amended Rule 4(3) of the Smoking Rules and COTPA, exposing operators to enforcement actions. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'no service' in designated smoking areas and prioritizes the right to clean air over commercial interests.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law