The Kerala High Court on Thursday orally criticised a lawyer for moving a PIL against author Arundhati Roy’s book Mother Mary Comes To Me, alleging that the book cover carried a photo of her smoking.

The bench noted that the plea ignored the disclaimer printed on the back cover, which stated that smoking was shown only for representational purposes. The petition sought a stay on the sale of the book without a statutory warning.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji pointed out that the petitioner had not even produced the book before the court. The petitioner admitted that he merely visited a bookstore and clicked a picture of the cover.

The bench then asked the petitioner’s counsel to clarify whether he wished to approach the competent authority under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) instead, and deferred the matter.

In its counter affidavit, Penguin Random House India, the publisher, placed on record a photograph of the back cover showing the 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 case was taken up again, the court sought to know if the petitioner wanted to continue arguments on the merits or approach the statutory authority. Penguin, meanwhile, pressed for exemplary costs. The bench also asked why the disclaimer was not disclosed in the petition. The counsel replied that the petitioner had not gone through the entire book and had only seen the cover.

The court expressed strong displeasure, remarking, “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 judges further stated, “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.”

In response, the petitioner’s counsel submitted, “I’ll leave it to your lordship.” The court again asked whether the matter would be argued on merits or referred to the authority, observing, “How can PIL petitioner say that it has not even seen the book?”

The counsel then clarified that his objection was only about the front cover image and not the content, stating, “I’m not worried about the contents of the book…” To this, the bench asked if the petitioner had specifically contended that the disclaimer ought to have been printed on the front. The lawyer replied that they would proceed with arguments.

In its order, the court recorded: “Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 takes serious objection that the PIL was filed without doing proper research, without even noticing the disclaimer on the book by the publisher to the effect that the intention is not to 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 a 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…” The court then adjourned the case to October 7 for further hearing.
(With Live Law Inputs)