Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the book “Mother Mary Comes to Me” authored by Arundhati Roy and published by Penguin Random House India. The petitioner had argued that the book’s cover — depicting the author smoking a cigarette — violated the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA).
The Court categorically rejected the plea, holding that the petitioner had filed the PIL without proper research, factual verification, or approaching the competent statutory authority, and had instead attempted to misuse the PIL mechanism for publicity.
“The petitioner is not the sole guardian of the Act of 2003… A statutory authority comprising experts and senior officials has been established under the Act to ensure its proper implementation,” the Bench observed.
The Court emphasized that any alleged violation of Section 5 of the Act must first be examined by the Steering Committee constituted under Rule 4(9) of the COTPA Rules, 2004, an expert body empowered to address such matters.
Facts
The petitioner, an advocate, alleged that the image of Arundhati Roy smoking a cigarette on the cover of “Mother Mary Comes to Me”, released in September 2025, violated Section 5 of COTPA, 2003, which prohibits any direct or indirect advertisement of tobacco products. He sought directions to the Union of India, the Press Council of India, and the State of Kerala to prohibit the book’s sale and circulation and to direct the publisher to withdraw all copies.
The petitioner argued that the cover indirectly promoted smoking and lacked the statutory health warning mandated by the Act. He also claimed that officials had failed to act against the publisher and author for allegedly violating public health laws.
However, the publisher countered that the book cover already carried a disclaimer stating that the depiction was not intended to promote smoking, and that the petitioner had deliberately omitted this fact from his petition.
The Court noted that the petitioner had not even examined the book before filing the petition, which contained only a photo of the cover and a copy of the statute as annexures.
Issues
- Whether the depiction of smoking on a book cover amounts to an advertisement of tobacco products under Section 5 of COTPA, 2003.
- Whether the PIL was maintainable without the petitioner first approaching the Steering Committee, the competent statutory authority under the Act.
- Whether the PIL was a bona fide public interest litigation or an abuse of the court’s jurisdiction for publicity purposes.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the display of the author smoking constituted indirect advertisement under Section 5(1) of the Act and violated public health regulations. He asserted that the depiction would encourage smoking and that the authorities had failed in their duty to act against the book’s publication.
He further argued that since the issue involved public health, the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. According to him, the disclaimer printed by the publisher was legally insufficient, and the matter warranted immediate judicial intervention.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India submitted that a Steering Committee under Rule 4(9) of the COTPA Rules, 2004, chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was the designated body to examine such alleged violations. This committee could receive complaints from the public or take up cases suo motu, afford hearings to the parties, and pass appropriate orders.
Penguin Random House, represented by senior counsel Santhosh Mathew, argued that the petitioner’s claim was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The publisher pointed out that:
- The book carried a disclaimer clarifying that the depiction was not promotional.
- Section 5 of the Act applies only to commercial advertisements of tobacco products, not to artistic depictions or book covers.
- The petitioner had suppressed material facts, failed to verify the contents, and had not approached the competent authority as required by Rule 146AD of the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971.
- The PIL violated the fundamental rights of the author and publisher under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) — the right to free expression and trade.
The publisher relied on several precedents including K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 780, Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India (2009 SCC Online Del 104), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, and Ramanathan v. State (2023 SCC Online Mad 4522), all underscoring the importance of freedom of expression and cautioning against moral censorship.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 5 of COTPA, 2003, which prohibits direct or indirect advertisements of cigarettes and other tobacco products, and Rule 2(e) of the 2004 Rules defining indirect advertisement. It clarified that these provisions primarily target commercial promotion of tobacco brands or products, not artistic or literary expressions.
The Court also analyzed the composition and functions of the Steering Committee, emphasizing that it is an expert body comprising officials from the Ministries of Health, Law, and Information & Broadcasting, as well as representatives from the Advertising Standards Council of India, Press Council of India, and medical professionals.
“Such questions have to be examined in light of statutory provisions, not on the basis of the petitioner’s moral perceptions,” the Bench observed.
The Court concluded that no provision in the Act or Rules mandates statutory warnings or restrictions on depictions of smoking in printed books. Therefore, the petitioner’s claims lacked legal foundation.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to several landmark judgments to explain the proper scope of public interest litigation and the boundaries of censorship:
- K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) – Recognized that artistic freedom cannot be curtailed on speculative harm; censorship must be narrowly tailored.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Upheld freedom of speech as a cornerstone of democracy, striking down vague restrictions on expression.
- Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 – Warned against misuse of PILs by “busybody” litigants seeking publicity or personal vendetta.
- Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India (2009) – Clarified that depictions of smoking in films or literature do not automatically constitute promotion unless proven to have commercial intent.
The Court relied heavily on Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware to condemn the petitioner’s conduct, quoting the Supreme Court’s observation:
“Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection… The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.”
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found the petition frivolous and ill-conceived, filed without examining either the book or the statutory framework. The petitioner failed to approach the Steering Committee, the proper forum, before invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction.
The Court criticized the petitioner’s lack of research, suppression of the disclaimer, and misrepresentation of legal provisions, noting that he had distorted the language of the Act. The Bench described his approach as “cavalier” and “wholly unsatisfactory,” particularly for a lawyer.
It emphasized that judicial intervention should not replace expert adjudication, especially where a specialized statutory body exists. The Court found that the PIL was motivated by personal publicity rather than genuine public concern.
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the petition with strong remarks on misuse of PIL jurisdiction:
“The petitioner, despite being aware, refused to take up the issue before the competent authority, filed the petition without verifying facts or law, and sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the guise of public interest.”
Reaffirming that Public Interest Litigation cannot be a forum for self-promotion or moral policing, the Bench held that allegations under the COTPA Act must be decided by the Steering Committee after due process.
Implications
This ruling is a significant reaffirmation of judicial restraint in matters involving freedom of expression and artistic representation. It sets out clear parameters for PILs, emphasizing:
- Courts will not entertain petitions filed for publicity or personal motives.
- Expert bodies, not courts, should decide complex regulatory questions under specialized legislation.
- Depictions of smoking in literature or art do not constitute advertisements unless they are commercially motivated.
The judgment thus safeguards creative freedom while reinforcing discipline in PIL litigation.
FAQs
1. Does showing smoking on a book cover violate the Tobacco Control Act?
No. The Act prohibits advertising tobacco products, not artistic or literary depictions without promotional intent.
2. What authority handles complaints of tobacco law violations?
The Steering Committee under Rule 4(9) of the 2004 Rules, chaired by the Ministry of Health, examines such complaints and can act suo motu.3. Why did the Kerala High Court dismiss this PIL?
Because the petitioner filed it without verifying facts or law, suppressed key information, and bypassed the competent authority — amounting to misuse of PIL jurisdiction.