KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the sale and circulation of Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy’s latest book, Mother Mary Comes to Me, on the grounds that its cover—featuring the author smoking a beedi—violated anti-tobacco laws.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the plea on Monday, firmly stating that the High Court was not the appropriate forum for such grievances and cautioned against the misuse of PILs for personal publicity.
Key Reasons for Dismissal
The Court’s decision was based on two primary factors:
- Issue for Statutory Authority: The Bench held that the question of whether a book cover violates Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA), is a matter of statutory interpretation and factual assessment that should be handled by the expert bodies constituted under the Act, such as the Steering Committee, after hearing all concerned parties.
- Lack of Research and Mala Fide Intent: The Court sharply criticized the petitioner, Advocate Rajasimhan, for filing the PIL “without examining the relevant legal position” and “without verifying the necessary material.” It was highlighted that the petitioner had failed to acknowledge or disclose a key fact: the publisher, Penguin Random House India, had already included a clear disclaimer on the back cover of the book.
Court’s Strong Observation on PIL Misuse
In its order, the Bench delivered a strong warning regarding the intent behind the petition:
“In light of these circumstances, keeping in mind the caution that courts must ensure that public interest litigation is not misused as a vehicle for self-publicity or for engaging in personal slander, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Details of the Original Petition
The PIL, filed last month, argued that the book cover’s image of the globally renowned author smoking a beedi, without the mandatory statutory health warning, amounted to an indirect advertisement and promotion of tobacco products, thereby violating COTPA.
- Petitioner’s Contention: Advocate Rajasimhan argued that the depiction “glorified smoking as a mark of intellect and creativity” and could send a “misleading message to the impressionable youth, particularly teenage girls and women” that smoking is fashionable. The plea sought to halt the book’s sale and circulation until a legally mandated warning was displayed on the cover.
- Publisher’s Defence: The publisher had strongly objected to the PIL, submitting proof that the back cover of the book carried a disclaimer clarifying that the image was “for representational purposes only” and that the company does “not promote or endorse tobacco use.”
The Kerala High Court’s ruling brings an end to the unusual legal challenge, reaffirming that matters under specialised legislation should first be addressed by the designated regulatory bodies and underscoring the necessity of genuine public interest in filing such petitions.
