September 19, 2025
KOCHI – The Kerala High Court on Thursday sought the Union government’s response to al PIL that seeks a stay on the sale of Booker prize winner Arundhati Roy’s recently-released book ‘Mother Mary Comes To Me’, whose cover photo shows her smoking a bidi, without any statutory health-hazard warning label.
The PIL was filed by advocate Rajasimhan contending that the image of the author smoking glorifies it as a symbol of intellectual and creative expression.
Rajasimhan clarified that he was not challenging the contents or the literary substance of the book
When the matter came before the division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, the Petitioner submitted that the book violates Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2013
According to the plea, the book is accessible to all and has the potential to send a misleading message to the impressionable youth, particularly teenage girls and women that smoking is fashionable
As per the petition, such depiction is violative 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’ (COTPA) and the 2008 Rules.The petitioner described the cover as “intellectual arrogance” and submitted that it amounts to an advertisement directly and indirectly under the Act.
Section 7 and Section 8 of the COTPA mandates statuary health warnings such as ‘Smoking is injurious to health’ or ‘Tobacco causes cancer’ on any depiction of smoking.
The book cover fails to carry such warnings, amounting to indirect advertisement of tobacco products expressly prohibited by law, the petitioner said in his petition
He prayed for directions to restrain the author and the publisher from further circulating or selling the book with the alleged cover picture.
The Bench noted that the petitioner has not annexed the Rules that deal with indirect advertisements. It further questioned whether the petitioner has approached the concerned authority under the Act.
“Has the petitioner approached the authority under the Rules? Some determination have to take place by the authority under this Act, whether this amounts to infringement or not. Has the petitioner made any representation to that authority?” the Court asked orally.