I still remember during my internship period, the sharp sting in my throat as I turned the corner of a corridor at the Supreme Court of India and walked into a hanging ribbon of cigarette smoke.

It wasn?t outside the gates or on a public footpath; it was inside the court, amidst the black coats, case bundles, and hurried whispers before a matter was called on.

A week earlier, at the Delhi High Court, I witnessed the same thing: the lawyers and other court professionals smoking near the canteen and the smoke curling through a space that should be as safe as it is solemn.

As a law student, the dissonance was jarring as the courts are not just public buildings; they are constitutional spaces. If we cannot breathe clean air in the temple of justice, where else can we? That day, I revisited what the law already makes crystal clear that smoking in court premises is prohibited, not merely as a matter of etiquette, but as a matter of law and health rights.

Two pillars frame the legal position. First, the Supreme Court?s landmark order in Murli S. Deora versus Union of India 2001, recognized the grave harms of passive smoking and prohibited smoking in a wide range of public places, moreover, grounded this in the right to life under Article 21, explicitly acknowledging that non-smokers cannot be forced into health risks due to others? choices. Thus, this became the constitutional seed from which later statutory and regulatory frameworks grew.

Second, Parliament enacted the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, in short, COTPA, whose Section 4 imposes a nationwide ban on smoking in public places, subject to narrow, regulated exceptions like designated smoking areas in certain large establishments.

However, court buildings, offices, and public institutions are squarely within the ?public place? definition, which means court premises must be smoke-free.

Delhi adds a further layer of local guidance and training materials implementing Delhi?s anti-smoking regime, which are often read in conjunction with COTPA and related rules. These materials state that public offices and court buildings are no-smoking zones, require conspicuous ?No Smoking? signage, and prescribe fines. Thus, this is not advisory; it is enforceable.

What the Courts Themselves Say About Their Premises
The Delhi High Court has repeatedly signaled a zero-tolerance approach as its Citizens? Charter states in plain terms that ?High Court premises are strictly a no-smoking area.? This throws light on an institutional commitment, not an ornamental line on a brochure.

In addition, an Environment Committee of the Delhi High Court previously directed that court complexes must be maintained as no-smoking zones, prompting follow-on circulars to district courts to ensure compliance. Therefore, the message is consistent that courts are public places and must be smoke-free.

Related proceedings have also addressed the sale of tobacco on court grounds, as in 2017, a Delhi High Court bench queried whether a cigarette shop could be permitted on court premises, which is an implicit recognition that supply points and ambient smoking culture undermine compliance.

The issue was referred to the Chamber Allotment Committee for examination. Separately, the report has noted the ban on the sale of tobacco products within the Delhi High Court premises. But these are not merely symbolic moves; they support the smokefree promise of Section 4 COTPA.

Passive Smoking Is Not ?Harmless Background? ? It?s a Rights Issue
When smoke drifted into my lungs in those corridors, the law gave my discomfort a name: passive smoking, and treated it as a rights violation. Murli Deora acknowledged the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers and treated protection from such harm as part of the right to life. That constitutional framing matters as it shifts the narrative from ?personal choice? to public obligation, especially in public institutions that serve everyone, including children, litigants with comorbidities, and court staff.

Professional Ethics and Courtroom Decorum
Beyond statutes and orders, smoking within court premises runs against the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette under the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules (Part VI, Chapter II). While the rules do not list ?smoking? as a standalone clause, they require advocates to maintain dignity in court, respect the institution, and conduct themselves with self-respect, standards incompatible with flouting a public-health prohibition on court property, in other words, even if no one fined a person that day, the act itself is professionally unbecoming in a court setting.

Courts across India publish etiquette expectations for all visitors, such as silence, sobriety, and compliance with rules, including no smoking. This is not mere ?good manners?; it safeguards proceedings and the health of everyone present.

The ?But What About Smoking Areas?? Question
Sometimes the defense is that ?Smoking is allowed in designated zones.? That argument misunderstands both place and permission.

The Supreme Court has clarified that the limited exceptions under COTPA apply to designated smoking areas in specified establishments like large hotels, restaurants, airports, and even there, the regulation is strict; therefore, that has nothing to do with smoking in court corridors, stairwells, canteens, or chambers as courts are not commercial smoking venues; they are public institutions where the default rule prevails.

We hold ourselves out as officers of the court, but if lawyers ignore public-health laws inside the courthouse, we erode credibility when we argue for strict compliance outside it.

Legal ethics is not only about conflicts, confidentiality, or advertising; it?s also about modeling respect for the law in the most visible of places.

The BCI Rules call to maintain dignity before the court should be read to include respect for court-mandated health norms.

A Respectful Ask
This is not about moral policing; rather, it?s about breathing as well as about honoring a constitutional commitment that the Supreme Court articulated nearly a quarter of a century ago.

The signage is up, the rules are in force, and the orders are on record.

What remains is professional discipline and collective courtesy.