The PIL claims that insurers have invested about Rs 1,07,000 crore in tobacco companies
Sumitra Pednekar, the 72-year-old wife of former Maharashtra minister for Home and Labour Satish Pednekar who died of oral cancer in 2011, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court seeking directions to public sector insurance companies like Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to divest their shareholdings from companies directly and indirectly engaged in tobacco businesses. Several eminent anti-tobacco crusaders also backed the PIL.
The PIL claims that insurers have invested about Rs 1,07,000 crore in tobacco companies. This is more than the budgets of several states, it said. These investments, the PIL said, are not just contrary to the stated objects of the State but also against the constitutional mandate vested in public sector companies.
The PIL said that there is estimated to be 27.5 crore tobacco users in India. This means every third Indian uses some form of tobacco. About 10 lakh Indians die from tobacco-related diseases each year. However, the Centre's initiatives, including the National Tobacco Control Programme (NTCP), for reducing tobacco usage and fulfilling its treaty obligations in the World Health Organisation (WHO), are falling flat because of the direct investments.
The PIL, filed through MZM Legal, seeks insurance majors like LIC, General Insurance Corporation, New India Assurance, Oriental Insurance and National Insurance Company to divest their stakes in tobacco firms.
The petition highlights that Article 5.3 of the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 2003, mandates members to create, implement, and protect policies for tobacco control. Further, Article 7.2 restrains parties from investing in the tobacco industry to avoid promoting the cultivation and production of tobacco.
"This action of insurance companies violate Article 21 of the Constitution, as such actions directly ensure the benefit of an industry that has been found to manufacture products directly and substantially prejudicing the right to life of the entire citizenry, both present and future," the PIL said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bombay High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}