KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Thursday criticised an advocate for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the cover of Arundhati Roy’s book Mother Mary Comes To Me, which features the author smoking, allegedly without a statutory health warning.
During the hearing of the PIL filed by Advocate Rajasimhan seeking a ban on the sale, circulation, and display of the book with the present cover design, the Division Bench questioned the nature and seriousness of the PIL, asking, “What kind of a PIL is this?” Noting that the petitioner had not examined the entire book, the court remarked, “When you file a PIL, how can you say you have not seen the book?”
The court then asked the petitioner’s counsel to clarify whether he wished to pursue the matter before the competent authority under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA), or to argue the case on merits. The counsel said he intended to argue the matter.
In response, the publisher submitted a photograph of the back cover of the book, which includes a disclaimer stating: “Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. It does not promote or endorse tobacco use.” The publisher’s counsel also requested exemplary costs be imposed on the petitioner for filing the PIL without adequate research.
The court then asked why the existence of the disclaimer was not mentioned in the petition. The petitioner’s counsel admitted that the petitioner had only looked at the cover and had not reviewed the entire book.
The court’s order noted that the publisher had taken serious objection to the PIL being filed without proper research and without acknowledging the disclaimer clearly printed on the book. It questioned the maintainability of such a PIL and asked why this information had been withheld. Upon further inquiry as to whether the petitioner would instead approach the appropriate statutory authority, counsel stated that the petitioner intended to argue the matter on its merits.
The court also cautioned the petitioner’s counsel that the publisher had sought exemplary costs and adjourned the matter to 7 October.