Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Arundhati Roy’s Mother Mary Comes To Me, Directs Tobacco Law Complaints to Expert Panel
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji on Monday, October 13, dismissed a public interest litigation that sought to restrain the sale of author Arundhati Roy’s book Mother Mary Comes To Me for displaying her photograph with a cigarette on the cover and for lacking a statutory warning label. The petitioner had requested that the book be withdrawn until such a warning was included. The Court ruled that questions of alleged violation under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, fall within the jurisdiction of the designated expert Steering Committee, and found no ground to interfere, terming the plea an improper use of public interest litigation.
The petitioner, Advocate Rajasimhan, filed a Public Interest Litigation against the Union of India, the Press Council of India, the State of Kerala, Penguin Random House of India, and author Arundhati Roy. He alleged that the image of the author smoking on the cover of “Mother Mary Comes to Me,” released on September 2, 2025, violated 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 sought directions to prohibit the book’s sale, circulation, and display, and to compel its publisher to withdraw all existing copies.
The petition relied on Sections 5, 7, and 8 of the Act, contending that the image amounted to a form of indirect advertisement encouraging tobacco consumption. The Union of India, through its counsel, responded that the competent authority to examine any alleged violation was the Steering Committee established under Rule 4(9) of the 2004 Rules framed under the Act. The Committee, comprising experts from multiple ministries and public health organizations, was empowered to consider such complaints.
Penguin Random House, representing itself and the author, objected to the maintainability of the PIL, pointing out that the book included a disclaimer stating that the image was not intended to promote smoking. The publisher also argued that the Act and the Rules did not extend to printed book imagery and that the petitioner had failed to approach the designated statutory forum. It further alleged suppression of facts and procedural violations under the Kerala High Court Rules. The publisher maintained that the petition infringed upon fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Bench observed that “the petition is filed with a photo of the book cover and a copy of the Act of 2003 as the only annexures,” noting that the petitioner had made “no reference whatsoever to the scheme of the Rules framed under the Act of 2003.” The Court recorded that “such a cavalier approach is wholly unsatisfactory” and expected greater diligence, especially from a lawyer.
It stated that “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,” and that “any person may bring to the notice of the Steering Committee an alleged violation... and the Committee also has the power to take up causes suo motu.” Describing the Committee’s composition, the Court observed that it was “comprised of senior-level officers and domain experts drawn from different fields,” intended to ensure expert evaluation.
Addressing the petitioner’s contention that an alternative remedy was not efficacious, the Court stated that “the correct question... 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.” It noted that “neither the Act... nor the Rules of 2004 make any specific reference to a mandate to place statutory warning on a book cover.”
Regarding the conduct of the petitioner, the Bench recorded that he “has not taken even a minimal effort to ascertain the true facts or the correct legal position before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court,” and cited the Supreme Court’s caution that “public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.”
The judgment stated: “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 Petitioner, despite being made 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.”
The Bench held that invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in such circumstances was inappropriate. It stated that the petitioner had misused the PIL process and attempted to portray himself as the “sole guardian” of the tobacco control legislation. Stating judicial restraint, the Court observed that such petitions erode the integrity of the public interest jurisdiction.
“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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: 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.
For the Respondents: Ms. Krishna S., CGC for Respondents 1 and 2; Sri. Santhosh Mathew (Senior), 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, and Sri. Arun Joseph Mathew.
Case Title: Rajasimhan v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:75638
Case Number: WP (PIL) No. 117 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji
