‘Not a promotion of smoking’: SC junks plea against Arundhati Roy book cover

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the cover could not be construed as promoting smoking or advertising tobacco products

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the cover of author Arundhati Roy’s book “Mother Mary Comes to Me”, holding that the literary work required creative freedom and did not violate any tobacco-control laws merely because the cover image shows her smoking a beedi.

The court said that the tobacco rules regulated advertisements, not artistic depictions within literary works. (ANI)

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the cover could not be construed as promoting smoking or advertising tobacco products, and emphasised that neither the author nor the publisher intended to endorse smoking.

The bench refused to interfere with the October 13 decision of the Kerala high court, which had rejected a similar challenge, and observed that the present litigation lacked substance.

“There is a disclaimer in the book. The author [Roy] is a renowned person who has carved out a name for herself. The publisher is also a well-known publisher. They have not promoted smoking, and did not need this photo to promote the book either. What can be your problem? Is it only to get popularity?” the bench asked senior advocate N Gopakumaran Nair, appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rajasimhan.

Nair argued that the book cover violated public policy and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003, and that a statutory health warning should have been printed prominently on the cover. He contended that depicting a celebrated author smoking a beedi on the front cover without mandatory warnings could influence impressionable readers. “We do not even know whether it is just a bidi or something else,” he told the court.

Rejecting the concerns, the bench said that the tobacco rules regulated advertisements, not artistic depictions within literary works. “This is not a hoarding at a public place. Someone who reads good quality literature will find this book is authored by a renowned author and will not buy it for the cover or for cigarettes,” it said. “The book, the author, or the publisher- none of them has the intention to advertise for cigarettes.”

The bench clarified that the presence of a visual depiction of smoking, accompanied by a disclaimer in the book, did not amount to a violation of the law. “The disclaimer is not a statutory warning, but to disabuse any person that the author, with a cigarette in the hand, promotes smoking in any manner. It does not become an advertisement per se,” the court said.

The bench told the petitioner that personal disagreement with an author’s views or public persona cannot translate into legal action without a specific violation. “You might have a disagreement with the author’s views, but this does not violate any regulation or law. The author has done her job.”

“The literary work does not constitute any violation of the regulations relating to the prohibition of tobacco and the 2003 Act. We therefore see no reason to entertain this petition, and the special leave petition is dismissed,” the court said.

The petition was an appeal against the October 13 ruling of the high court, which had dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) claiming the book’s cover violated the law by not carrying a statutory health warning.

The high court recorded that the publisher, Penguin Random House India, had included a disclaimer on the back cover stating that the photograph of the author smoking a beedi was only “for representation purposes” and that the company did not endorse tobacco use. It also held that challenges under the COTPA Act should be addressed by expert bodies constituted under the statute and remarked that the PIL appeared motivated by publicity rather than public interest.

The high court noted that the petitioner had refused to approach the appropriate statutory authority and had filed the petition “without examining the relevant legal position” or verifying the presence of the disclaimer on the book.

The PIL argued that the cover glorified smoking and could mislead young readers, especially women, into viewing smoking as fashionable. The petitioner clarified that his objection was not to Roy’s writing but to the image.

The publisher countered that the plea was filed without proper research and that the disclaimer addressed any concerns.