Kerala High Court
Rajasimhan vs Union Of India on 13 October, 2025
WP(PIL) No.117/2025 -:1:-
2025:KER:75638
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(PIL) NO. 117 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAJASIMHAN, AGED 47 YEARS
ADVOCATE, S/O. LATE T. V. APPUKUTTAN,
ADVOCATE, B12, ASHOKA APARTMENTS, MARINE DRIVE,
HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
BY ADVS. SRI. N. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SENIOR)
SRI. S. PRASANTH
SMT. HELEN P.A.
SRI. ATHUL ROY
SMT. RENUKA VENU
SRI. INDRAJITH DILEEP
SMT. AMALA ANNA THOTTUPURAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001.
2 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/REGISTRAR,
SOOCHNABHAWAN, 8-CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003.
WP(PIL) No.117/2025 -:2:-
2025:KER:75638
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
TOWER-1, 4TH FLOOR, EMMAR CAPITAL,
MEHRAULI-GURGAON RD., SIKANDERPUR, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA, 'PUBLISHER OF MOTHER MARY COME TO ME',
PIN - 122002.
5 MS. ARUNDHATI ROY, AUTHOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER PUBLISHER,
PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
TOWER-1, 4TH FLOOR, EMMAR CAPITAL,
MEHRAULI-GURGAON RD., SIKANDERPUR, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA, PIN - 122002.
BY ADVS. MS.KRISHNA S., CGC FOR R1 & R2
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.) FOR R4
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN
SRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SRI.KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
SRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
SMT.APARNNA S.
SRI.NOEL NINAN NINAN
SRI.ADEEN NAZAR
SRI.ARUN JOSEPH MATHEW
THIS WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) HAVING
COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(PIL) No.117/2025 -:3:-
2025:KER:75638
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
The book authored by Respondent No.5 titled "Mother Mary
Comes to Me", published by Respondent No.4, a publishing house, was
released on 2 September 2025. According to the Petitioner, the image of
the author on the cover of this Book, smoking a cigarette, is in
contravention of the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco
Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and
Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. The
Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents - Union of India, Press
Council of India, and State of Kerala, to prohibit the sale, circulation, and
display of the Book, and to direct Respondent No.4 to withdraw all
copies of the Book.
2. The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of
Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production,
Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (Act of 2003), as reflected in its
Statement of Objects, was enacted to prohibit the advertisement of, and
to regulate the trade, commerce, production, supply, and distribution of
cigarettes and other tobacco products. Section 3(a) of the Act of 2003
defines "advertisement" to include any visible representation by way of
notice, circular, label, wrapper, or other document, and also encompasses
any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or
transmitting light, sound, smoke, or gas.
2025:KER:75638
3. Section 5 of the Act of 2003, which is the primary provision
prohibiting the advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products,
reads as follows:
"5. Prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes and
other tobacco products.- (1) No person engaged in, or
purported to be engaged in the production, supply or
distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products
shall advertise and no person having control over a
medium shall cause to be advertised cigarettes or any
other tobacco products through that medium and no
person shall take part in any advertisement which directly
or indirectly suggests or promotes the use or consumption
of cigarettes or any other tobacco products.
(2) No person, for any direct or indirect pecuniary
benefit, shall-
(a) display, cause to display, or permit or authorise
to display any advertisement of cigarettes or any other
tobacco product; or
(b) sell or cause to sell, or permit or authorise to
sell a film or video tape containing advertisement of
cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or
(c) distribute, cause to distribute, or permit or
authorise to distribute to the public any leaflet, hand-bill
or document which is or which contains an advertisement
of cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or
(d) erect, exhibit, fix or retain upon or over any
land, building, wall, hoarding, frame, post or structure or
upon or in any vehicle or shall display in any manner
whatsoever in any place any advertisement of cigarettes or
any other tobacco product:
2025:KER:75638
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in
relation to-
(a) an advertisement of cigarettes or any other
tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes
or any other tobacco product;
(b) advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco
product which is displayed at the entrance or inside a
warehouse or a shop where cigarettes and any other
tobacco products are offered for distribution or sale.
(3) No person, shall, under a contract or otherwise
promote or agree to promote the use or consumption of-
(a) cigarettes or any other tobacco product; or
(b) any trade mark or brand name of cigarettes or
any other tobacco product in exchange for a sponsorship,
gift, prize or scholarship given or agreed to be given by
another person."
***
Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 2003 regulate the trade, commerce,
production, supply, and distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco
products. Sections 8, 9, and 10 prescribe the manner in which the
specified health warnings are to be displayed. Section 25 empowers the
Central or State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to
authorize one or more persons competent to act under the Act of 2003.
4. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 31 of the Act of 2003, has framed the Cigarettes and Other
Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of
2025:KER:75638
Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004
(Rules of 2004). Under Rule 2(e), "indirect advertisement" as referred to
in Section 5(1) of the Act of 2003 is defined to include, the use of a name
or brand of tobacco products for marketing, promoting, or advertising
other goods, services, or events; the marketing of tobacco products with
the aid of a brand name or trademark that is known or used as a name or
brand for other goods or services; the use of particular colours, layouts, or
presentations associated with specific tobacco products; and the depiction
of tobacco products or smoking situations in the advertisement of other
goods and services. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2004 provides for prohibition
of advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products and also for the
establishment of a Steering Committee to oversee compliance.
5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 25 of the Act of
2003 and Rule 4 of the Rules of 2004, the Central Government has
constituted the Steering Committee to examine alleged violations under
Section 5 of the Act. The Steering Committee constituted under sub-rule
(9) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2004, is empowered to take cognizance suo
motu or examine specific violations under Section 5 of the Act of 2003,
including cases relating to indirect advertising and promotion, and to pass
appropriate orders. This is, in short, the statutory scheme and the
adjudicatory forum for such matters.
6. We have heard Mr. N. Gopakumaran Nair, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. S. Prasanth, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. S.
2025:KER:75638
Krishna, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Santhosh Mathew, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Arun Thomas, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
7. The primary contention of the Petitioner is that the depiction of
smoking on the cover of the Book constitutes a violation of Section 5 of
the Act of 2003. It is further urged that, as a consequence, Sections 7 and
8 of the Act of 2003 are triggered and the Official Respondents are
obliged to take appropriate action against Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in
respect of the book in question.
8. The learned counsel for the Union of India, after taking instructions,
submitted that the Steering Committee constituted under the Act of
2003 and the Rules of 2004 is the competent authority to examine
allegations of violations of Section 5 of the Act. Any member of the
public may submit a complaint, including through the online portal, and
the Steering Committee is required to afford a hearing to the person
against whom the complaint is made before passing any order. It was
further submitted that, if the Steering Committee finds merit in a
complaint, it can provide a hearing to both the complainant and the
alleged offending party. The learned counsel emphasised that the
Petitioner has rushed to this Court without first approaching the
designated expert authority.
9. Respondent No. 4, the publisher of the Book, has taken serious
objection to the suppression and lack of due diligence by the Petitioner in
2025:KER:75638
failing to disclose the presence of a disclaimer on the Book, which states
that the depiction is not intended to promote smoking. Respondent No.4
submitted that, with reference to the provisions of the Act of 2003 and
the Rules of 2004, the Petitioner has wrongly stated in paragraph 15 of
the petition that depictions of smoking in films, television, and media are
required to carry statutory health warnings. The insertion of the word
"print" in this context is erroneous, as no such requirement exists. It was
further contended that the Petitioner has not complied with Rule 146AD
of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, which mandates
disclosure as to whether the Petitioner has approached the competent
authority for redressal of the grievance before invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent No.4 argued that a plain reading of
Section 7 of the Act of 2003 shows that it applies only to persons engaged
in the production, supply, and distribution of cigarettes, and that the
statutory warning referred to therein is required to be placed on the
packets of cigarettes and other tobacco products. There is no provision
under the Act of 2003 or the Rules of 2004 mandating such warnings on
images, pictures, or photographs. Respondent No.4 reiterated that
Section 5 focuses solely on the prohibition of advertisements of cigarettes
and that images or depictions such as those on a book cover are not
covered under the Act of 2003, yet Respondent No.4 has volunteered to
place a disclaimer in the Book. Respondent No.4 has relied upon the
decisions in the cases of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India1, Mahesh Bhatt v.
1 (1970) 2 SCC 780
2025:KER:75638
Union of India2, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India3, and Ramanathan v.
State4. Respondent No.4 further contended that the book cover is an
integral and inseparable part of the book, and that the Petitioner cannot,
by selectively interpreting the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2004 to suit
his contentions, seek to infringe the fundamental rights of Respondent
Nos.4 and 5 under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India. Respondent No.4 has also annexed to its counter affidavit
several photographs, book covers, and materials from the print media
illustrating depictions of persons smoking. According to Respondent
No.4, this petition is merely an attempt to gain cheap publicity and ought
to be dismissed.
10. At the outset, it is necessary to comment on the manner in which
this petition has been presented by the Petitioner, who is a practicing
advocate. The petition is filed with a photo of the book cover and a copy
of the Act of 2003 as the only annexures. The petition makes no
reference whatsoever to the scheme of the Rules framed under the Act of
2003. Various Rules have been notified under the Act of 2003, and other
details are compiled in the Guidelines for Law Enforcers for Effective
Implementation of Tobacco Control Laws, 2024, published by the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. These
documents and the Rules are in the public domain, yet the Petitioner
made no reference to them in the pleadings and the petition was filed
2 2009 SCC Online Del 104
3 (2015) 5 SCC 1
4 2023 SCC Online Mad 4522
2025:KER:75638
without proper research. The language of the legal provision is sought to
be distorted. The Petition does not disclose that the disclaimer placed by
the publisher on the Book states that the depiction is not intended to
promote smoking. When queried why this fact was not disclosed in the
petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner candidly stated that the
Petitioner had not examined the Book before filing the petition. It is not
the Petitioner's case that the disclaimer was examined and was found
inadequate; rather, it was not examined at all. Such a cavalier approach is
wholly unsatisfactory. Greater diligence and responsibility was expected,
particularly in a petition filed by an advocate raising legal issues. After
Respondent No.4 raised an objection regarding the incomplete and
inaccurate presentation of facts and suppression, the Petitioner sought to
tender a rejoinder in court without first seeking leave to do so.
11. The Steering Committee, constituted under Rule 4(9) of the Rules
of 2004, is empowered to examine violations of Section 5 of the Act of
2003. The composition of the Steering Committee placed before us
shows that it is comprised of senior-level officers and domain experts
drawn from different fields. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India, serves as the Chairperson. The members
include a nominated Member of Parliament, the Director General of
Health Services, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice,
representatives of the Advertising Standards Council of India and the
Press Council of India, representative of an Institute of Public Health, a
2025:KER:75638
senior medical professional from the Department of Preventive
Oncology, representative of the Non-Governmental Organisation
Consumer Online Foundation, and the Joint Secretary in-charge of
Tobacco Control, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Therefore, this
Steering Committee is comprised of members who can bring in diverse
perspectives when the question arises as to whether there is any violation
of Section 5 of the Act of 2003. This wide and diverse composition is
intended to ensure that the issue is looked at holistically and that would
require expert input. It is, therefore, an expert body entrusted with the
responsibility to examine violations of Section 5 and to pass orders
thereon. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union of India,
any person may bring to the notice of the Steering Committee an alleged
violation of Section 5 of the Act of 2003, and the Committee also has the
power to take up causes suo motu.
12. The Petitioner treats the Steering Committee as an alternative
remedy and contends that this petition is maintainable notwithstanding
the availability of an alternative remedy, on the ground that such a
remedy is not efficacious. According to the Petitioner, the disclaimer
stated to have been printed on the Book by the publisher is not in
conformity with the provisions of the Act of 2003 and, therefore, despite
the presence of such disclaimer, there is a violation of Section 5 of the
Act. It is also submitted that since the alleged violation is a direct
infraction of the statutory provisions, the matter warrants examination in
the present writ petition.
2025:KER:75638
13. The contention of the Petitioner regarding the exercise of writ
jurisdiction despite the existence of an alternative remedy is wholly
misguided. The Petitioner has not approached this Court for a personal
cause but purports to raise an issue for the benefit of the public. The
correct question, therefore, is not whether the Petitioner has an effective
"remedy", but whether the matter is one that ought to be examined by an
expert body constituted under the Act of 2003. Apart from making a
general and vague assertion in oral arguments that the decision of the
Steering Committee may not be correct, the Petitioner has offered no
further substantiation as to why it would be so.
14. Neither the Act of 2003, particularly Section 5 thereof, nor the
Rules of 2004 make any specific reference to a mandate to place statutory
warning on a book cover. Therefore, it has to be determined whether
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have, in fact, contravened Section 5 of the Act
of 2003. Such questions have to be examined in light of the statutory
provisions and not on the basis of the Petitioner's moral perceptions.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have, in turn, asserted their fundamental rights
under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,
namely, the right to carry on trade or business and the right to freedom of
expression. Any contravention of the Act of 2003 or the Rules of 2004
carries legal consequences, including the possibility of adverse orders
against the concerned party. To determine whether there is a violation of
Section 5, the statute itself provides a mechanism and constitutes an
expert body, the Steering Committee, for that purpose.
2025:KER:75638
15. As regards the conduct of the Petitioner, he has not only not
bothered to take up the cause with the competent authority, but has also
made no reference to it in the petition. For no reason, the Petitioner in
the oral arguments raises doubts as to the credibility of the Steering
Committee. The Petitioner has not taken even a minimal effort to
ascertain the true facts or the correct legal position before invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court. The Petitioner is not the sole guardian of the
Act of 2003, as he seeks to portray. A statutory authority comprising
experts and senior officials has been established under the Act of 2003 to
ensure its proper implementation and to prevent its misuse, where
applicable. The petition was filed without even examining the Book and,
after the filing of a detailed counter affidavit by Respondent No.4, the
suppression of material facts was now sought to be covered up. In the
arguments, the Petitioner attributes "Intellectual Arrogance" to
Respondent No.4, which is entirely irrelevant to the legal questions. The
learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner has
chosen to file this Public Interest Litigation only to garner self-publicity,
and to cast personal aspersions on Respondent No.5. We agree.
16. The misuse of Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction has been noted
in several cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Dattaraj
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others5, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
5 (2005) 1 SCC 590
2025:KER:75638
"12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to
be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens.
The attractive brand name of public interest litigation
should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.
It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented
or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above,
court must be careful to see that a body of persons or
member of the public, who approaches the court is
acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private
motive or political motivation or other oblique
considerations. The court must not allow its process to
be abused for oblique considerations by masked
phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit
or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a
good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they
are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve
to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in
appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
***
This legal position will entail dismissal of the Petition.
17. To conclude, whether there is any infringement of Section 5 of the
Act of 2003 is a question involving statutory interpretation and factual
assessment. In view of the statutory scheme under the Act of 2003 and
2025:KER:75638
the Rules of 2004, such matters are to be decided by the expert body
constituted under the Act, namely, the Steering Committee, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Steering
Committee is empowered to act suo motu, and any person may bring to
its notice an alleged violation of Section 5 of the Act of 2003. The
Petitioner, despite making him aware, has refused to take up the issue
before the competent expert statutory authority, filed the petition without
examining the relevant legal position, and without verifying the necessary
material, including the presence of a disclaimer on the Book, has sought
to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the guise of
public interest. 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 slanders,
the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
krj/-
2025:KER:75638
APPENDIX OF WP(PIL)NO.117/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF THE 'MOTHER
MARY COMES TO ME' BOOK.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE (PROHIBITION OF
ADVERTISEMENT AND REGULATION OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY AND
DISTRIBUTION) ACT, 2003' (HEREINAFTER 'COTPA,
2003') ACT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO
PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT AND
REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION
SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) AMENDMENT RULES,
2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT RULES, 2005.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIGARETTE PACKETS OF
THREE MAJOR BRANDS OF CIGARETTES SOLD IN
INDIA, WITH THE ABOVE STATUTORY WARNING.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-R4(1) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BACK
COVER OF THE BOOK SHOWING THE DISCLAIMER.
EXHIBIT-R4(2) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION G.S.R.489(E) DATED
09.06.2010 OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT-R4(3) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
'GUIDELINES FOR LAW ENFORCERS FOR EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION OF TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS'
PUBLISHED IN 2024 BY THE NATIONAL TOBACCO
CONTROL PROGRAMME, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
2025:KER:75638
EXHIBIT-R4(4) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 OF
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP(CRIMINAL)
DIARY NO. 49498 OF 2023 (S. CYRIL ALEXANDER
V. STATE)
EXHIBIT-R4(5) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2009 OF
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CC 3709-
3711/2009 (UNION OF INDIA V. MAHESH BHAT).
EXHIBIT-R4(6) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THREE PAINTINGS
DEPICTING VAN GOGH SMOKING, WHICH ARE A PART
OF VAN GOGH'S SELF-PORTRAIT SERIES.
EXHIBIT-R4(7) TRUE COPY OF 16 PHOTOGRAPHS OF BOOK COVERS
DEPICTING SMOKING PUBLISHED IN INDIA AFTER
THE COMMENCEMENT OF COTPA.
EXHIBIT-R4(8) TRUE COPY OF 14 PHOTOGRAPHS FROM MAGAZINE AND
NEWS ARTICLES DEPICTING SMOKING PUBLISHED IN
INDIA AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF COTPA.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
