On Monday, in a decision reflecting judicial restraint over artistic expression and the proper forum for regulatory complaints, the Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the cover of author Arundhati Roy’s latest work, Mother Mary Comes to Me, which portrays her holding a cigarette without a statutory health warning.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji noted that the grievance raised under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA) and the 2008 Rules fell squarely within the remit of the designated authorities established under the statute. “In view of the statutory scheme under COTPA Act, 2003 and Rules, such matters are to be decided by expert bodies constituted under the Act after hearing parties,” the Court observed.
The Bench expressed reservations about the bona fides of the PIL, observing that the petitioner had disregarded both procedural propriety and factual verification before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court. “The petitioner, despite making him aware, has refused to take up the issue before the statutory authority, filed a petition without examining relevant legal position, without verifying the necessary material, including the presence of disclaimer on the book, has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under the guise of public interest,” the Bench recorded.
“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,” it added.
The petition, filed by Advocate Rajasimhan, had alleged that the image of the celebrated author smoking a cigarette amounted to an indirect promotion of tobacco use, arguing that it “glorifies smoking as a mark of creative and intellectual expression.” He asserted that such a portrayal could mislead impressionable readers, particularly young women, into perceiving smoking as fashionable.
Rajasimhan clarified that his plea did not question the contents or literary merit of the book, but rather its visual presentation, contending that Sections 7 and 8 of COTPA mandate statutory health warnings on any depiction of smoking. He sought directions restraining the author and publisher from distributing the book without the warning and urged the authorities to ensure compliance, including re-publication with appropriate health cautions.
The Bench, however, noted that the publisher had already included a disclaimer on the back cover, a fact that was not disclosed in the petition. It further held that adjudication of alleged violations under COTPA is a matter for the expert authorities constituted by Parliament, not the constitutional courts in their writ jurisdiction.
By dismissing the petition, the Court reaffirmed that the supervisory powers of constitutional courts cannot be invoked to scrutinize matters statutorily entrusted to specialized bodies, especially when public interest litigation veers into the realm of private grievance or publicity.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :