Arundhati Roy's Book Mother Mary Comes To Me Has Smoking Disclaimer, Penguin India Tells Court

Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Thursday, September 25 sharply questioned the lawyer appearing for a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to ban the sale of author Arundhati Roy's book "Mother Mary Comes To Me" over a smoking image on its cover. The publisher of the book, Penguin Random House India, stated that the book actually contains a clear disclaimer on the back cover stating: "Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use." When asked why this disclaimer wasn't mentioned in the PIL, the lawyer admitted that the petitioner had only looked at the front cover and hadn't gone through the entire book. Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, hearing the case, made several pointed observations criticising the petition.

What Is The Case About?

The PIL was filed demanding that the book's sale be stopped because it shows a photograph of the author smoking on the front cover, allegedly without proper health warnings as required by tobacco control laws. Citing Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner claimed that the image amounts to both direct and indirect promotion of tobacco use, and described it as an act of“intellectual arrogance.”  Hearing the case on September 18, the Union government was asked to respond to the petition while the the petitioner was directed to seek instructions regarding the appropriate authority under the Act.

On Thursday, the court questioned why the petitioner did not properly examine the book before approaching the court and why the actual book was not produced in court. "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," LiveLaw reported the court as saying.

The petitioner's lawyer offered a limited defense, focusing narrowly on the smoking image displayed on the book's front cover. He clarified that his grievance was not with the contents of the book itself, stating,“I'm not worried about the contents of the book.” Instead, he objected to the placement of the statutory disclaimer, insisting that it should have been printed on the front cover rather than the back. When the court questioned why the disclaimer had not been mentioned in the PIL, the lawyer candidly admitted that the petitioner had not examined the entire book and had only glanced at the cover while visiting a bookstall. Despite the court's criticism of this lack of due diligence and its suggestion that the petitioner approach tobacco control authorities instead, the lawyer chose to proceed with the case on its merits. The court questioned the 'poorly researched' petition and asked whether the bench should penalise the petitioner as argued by the publisher. The matter has been listed again for hearing on October 7.

MENAFN25092025007385015968ID1110109304