Hookah Service In Designated Smoking Area Is "Categorically, Unconditionally And Absolutely Prohibited": Allahabad High Court

In an epilogue, the Court noted that a single hookah session lasting about an hour involves an estimated 200 puffs and is equivalent in harm to smoking 100 cigarettes, calling it a myth that hookah is less harmful. It expected the State of Uttar Pradesh to notify stringent punishment for hookah service in Designated Smoking Areas, on the lines of other States. From his poem, "My Experience With Tobacco Smoking", Justice Saraf then drew on his own experience to address the young, recounting how he began with an innocent cigarette offered by a senior in law school and later failed repeatedly to quit. “…Trust the cough, not what I said. At twenty, full of swagger, sure and free. Don't be the fool who scoffed, only to become a boiling frog", the lines read.

The Court dismissed a batch of 80 writ petitions by restaurateurs who contended that a food licence and a compliant smoking area entitled them to run hookah bars. It rejected the "self-service" and "rental" models, holding that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India must yield to the non-smoker's right under Article 21, to breathe clean air in public places. It also held that food safety and municipal authorities cannot license hookah bars, while police may enforce the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA).

Advocate Harshit Singh appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Siddharth Shankar Dubey appeared for the respondent.

The petitioners held food licences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and operated hookah facilities in Designated Smoking Areas. The lead petitioner ran a café in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. A police raid was followed by a preventive order dated May 15, 2023 under Section 133 CrPC, which recorded that hookah was served without permission, consumed outside the café and given to minors.

The controversy traces to a suo motu PIL, in which the High Court restrained hookah service during COVID-19. The Chief Secretary banned hookah bars on September 5, 2020. On February 21, 2023, the Court left applicants free to seek licences, and a circular of March 29, 2023 followed, requiring compliance with the amended 2008 Rules.

The Court held the COVID ban was temporary, but rejected the argument that the circular implicitly legalised hookah bars. It held that the pre-2017 phrase "no other service(s)" allowed hookah under Narinder S. Chadha, whereas the substitution of "No service" removed that qualification, so Chadha no longer applies. It endorsed R. Bharath v. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 41.

“We are at consensus ad idem with the ratio laid down in R. Bharath (supra) that post the amendement of 2017 to the Rules, there is not an iota of doubt that ‘service’ of hookah is absolutely impermissible in the Designated Smoking Area. The amendment on a literal and purposive interpretation leads one to the above inexorable conclusion”, the Bench noted.

The "self-service" argument was termed an afterthought, absent from the pleadings and unworkable given the technical preparation hookah requires. The "rental" argument failed because the patron cannot take the apparatus anywhere and must use it within the smoking area. Drawing on statutory and dictionary definitions, the Court held that preparing, delivering, lighting and replenishing hookah for consideration is a "service".

Placing reliance on G.K. Krishnan and Indian Handicrafts Emporium, it held that "regulation" includes "prohibition".

While no specific ban on hookah smoking exists, the Court said encouraging it through service cannot be permitted. It held that police powers under Sections 12 and 13 of COTPA extend to search and seizure.

“…We agree with the petitioners that there is no specific prohibition or ban on hookah tobacco smoking. However, the encouragement of hookah smoking by providing the hookah apparatus, tobacco and rendering services intrinsically linked to smoking of the same cannot be permitted keeping in mind the amended Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 2008. The very rationale of ‘no service’ in a smoking area is to protect the non-smoking personnel and waiting staff…”, the Bench said.

“…Furthermore, the self-service model attempted to be portrayed by the counsel suggesting obscured ideas of providing a prepared and ready to use hookah outside the smoking zone to the customer and charging them for the same is nothing but an attempt tp obfuscate the entire process of hookah smoking and is clearly an argument in sophistry to circumvent the object to be achieved as stated in the Preamble and escape from the clutches of the COTPA by making a mockery of the same. If one were to agree with the submissions put forth by the petitioners one would be hoodwinking oneself of the goals to be achieved by COTPA and the Rules framed thereunder”, the Bench further noted.

Consequentially, the Registry was directed to send the judgment to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police for compliance. In an epilogue, the Court expected the State to notify stringent punishment for hookah service, as other States have done.

Cause Title: M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LB:69218-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioners: Harshit Singh (who argued), Vatsala Singh, Nitesh Kumar Mishra and Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Advocates.

Respondents: Siddharth Shankar Dubey, and Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Om Shankar Tiwari, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment