The Kerala High Court on Thursday flagged some serious shortcomings in the public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed against the cover image of Arundhati Roy's latest book 'Mother Mary Comes to Me' [Rajasimhan v Union of India].
The petitioner had objected to the cover image of Roy smoking a cigarette, and argued that it glorified tobacco as a symbol of intellectual and creative expression. His plea highlighted that the image was not accompanied by any health warning about the ill effects of smoking tobacco.
A Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, however, noted today that the petitioner had failed to disclose the fact that the publisher had included a disclaimer about smoking on the back side of the book.
"What is this, counsel? You should file a petition disclosing that at least such a disclaimer is there. When you file a PIL, how can you say you have not seen the book? What kind of PIL is this? We may impose exemplary costs," Chief Justice Jamdar remarked.
The Court took note of the disclaimer following submissions made by the book's publisher, Penguin Random House India, in a counter affidavit.
Penguin has argued that the PIL was filed without proper research and without taking note of a disclaimer printed in the book's back cover, stating that the publisher does not endorse the use of tobacco.
"Had the petitioner bothered to have a glance at the back cover of the book, he would have seen a disclaimer saying 'Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use'," the counter affidavit by Penguin stated.
Having taken note of this aspect, the Court today asked the petitioner if he wished to continue arguing his case in court or if he would want to approach the concerned government authority to resolve the issues raised by him.
The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner has not gone through the book himself. Referring to the disclaimer referred to by Penguin, the counsel said,
"No, we have not seen it. It is only on the inside back cover."
He clarified that the petitioner's objection to the book was limited to the depiction of the author, a public and well known figure, showing a picture of herself smoking on the cover of a book and not the contents of the book.
He insisted on arguing the matter further before the Court itself.
"We will argue the matter. My Lord, we are not worried about the content of the book, only the picture on the cover," he said.
The Court proceeded to post the case for further consideration on October 7.
"The petitioner's counsel stated that he intends to argue the matter on merits. The Court posted the case for hearing on 7th October 2025. The petitioner was also informed that the respondent has sought exemplary costs in the petition.", the Court stated in its order.
The PIL before the Court was filed by a lawyer, Rajasimhan, who has raised concerns that the book's cover image could mislead impressionable readers, particularly teenage girls and women, into believing that smoking is fashionable.
The book's publisher Penguin has, however, countered that the laws which require depictions of cigarette smoking to be accompanied by health warnings does not apply to literary works or books.
The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA) and its 2008 Rules only applied to depictions of tobacco in films and television programmes, Penguin has argued.
The publisher further stressed that artistic expression, including the depiction of smoking, is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) 9freedom of trade) of the Constitution.
Penguin added that if the petitioner's arguments are accepted, it could threaten artistic works and amount to moral policing disguised as legal action.
Senior Counsel S Gopakumaran Nair appeared for the petitioner, while Penguin Random House India was represented by advocate Anil Sebastian Pulickel.