Kerala High Court Pulls Lawyer Seeking Stay On Sale Of Arundhati Roy's Book Without Noticing Smoking Disclaimer On Back Cover

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 25) orally questioned an advocate for filing a PIL seeking action against author Arundhati Roy's book 'Mother Mary Comes To Me' for having a photo of the author smoking on the cover, without taking note of a written disclaimer regarding smoking published on the back.

The Court was hearing a PIL filed by an advocate (petitioner) seeking a stay on the book's sale without statutory label.

During the hearing a division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji orally said to the petitioner that he had not even shown the book to the court. The petitioner said that he had gone to a bookstall and had taken a photograph.

The court thereafter orally said, "It was not even shown to us...There is one more option that we indicated last time also. There is an authority. Do you want to go there? This is not correct. You should have at least dealt with that. Whatever statement is made on the book in the petition. You could have said that this not enough, we understand".

The court then asked the petitioner's counsel to take instructions if he wants to go before the concerned authority under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA), and passed over the matter.

Meanwhile Respondent No.4, Penguin Random House India Pvt. Ltd., the publisher of the book in its counter affidavit produced a photograph of the back of the book mentioning a written disclaimer "Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use."

When the matter was taken up again, the Court asked the petitioner's counsel whether he wants to argue the matter on merits or go before the authority. Penguin meanwhile sought for imposition of exemplary costs. 

The Court asked the petitioner's counsel why the disclaimer on the back of the book was not informed of in the PIL. To this, the counsel said that the petitioner did not go through the entire book but only looked at the cover. 

The court then remarked, "What kind of PIL is this? The 4th respondent has raised serious objections saying that the PIL was not properly researched. Should we impose costs or do you want to go before the authority?"

The court asked the counsel if its wants to argue the matter or approach the concerned authority under COTPA. 

"There is a disclaimer at the end. If you had dealt with the disclaimer saying it was not enough, we can understand. How can you suppress? We are giving an opportunity to you whether you want to go to the authority under the Act. We are putting you to notice that if we hear the matter on merits we will look into conduct of not even looking at the book and their prayer of exemplary costs. Take a decision today," the Court said. 

The counsel said, "I'll leave it to your lordship". The Court further asked the counsel for the petitioner, "Do you want to argue on merits or do you want to go before authority? How can PIL petitioner say that it has not even seen the book?".

The counsel said that the disclaimer is not on the front and that his grievance is only regarding the image on the front cover. "I'm not worried about the contents of the book...," he added. 

To this, the Court orally asked if the petitioner had said that the disclaimer should have been on the face of the book. The counsel said that they will argue the matter. 

The Court, thereafter, in its order dictated:

"Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 takes serious objection that the PIL was filed without doing proper research, without even noticing disclaimer on the book by the publisher to the effect that the intention is to not promote publishing. To a query as to why this was not disclosed, the counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has not seen the entire book. Question arises as to the entertainability of such PIL. Further query whether petitioner would approach the authority under the statutory framework in the grievance, counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner intends to argue the matter on merits...The petitioner will also note that the respondent has sought for exemplary cost..."

It thereafter listed the matter on October 7 for further hearing. 

Case Title: Rajasimhan v. Union of India

Case No: WP(PIL) No. 117/ 2025