New Delhi – The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the cover of Arundhati Roy’s latest book, Mother Mary Comes to Me, asserting that the literary work falls squarely within the realm of creative freedom and does not violate any tobacco-control laws. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that the cover image, which depicts the author smoking a beedi, cannot be construed as promoting tobacco use.

The petitioner had argued that the depiction of Roy smoking on the book’s front cover could influence impressionable readers, particularly young women, and that it violated public policy and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003. He contended that the cover should have carried a statutory health warning, akin to regulations mandated for advertisements or packaging of tobacco products.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that artistic expression within literary works is distinct from advertising or commercial promotion of tobacco products. “The book, the author, or the publisher—none of them has the intention to advertise for cigarettes,” the bench remarked. The court noted that the cover includes a disclaimer clarifying that the depiction is for representational purposes and does not endorse smoking, which further negates any claim of violation.

Kerala High Court Precedent Upheld

The apex court refused to interfere with the October 13 ruling of the Kerala High Court, which had previously dismissed a similar petition. The high court had observed that the publisher, Penguin Random House India, had included a clear disclaimer on the back cover, stating that the photograph of Roy smoking a beedi was “for representation purposes” and that the company did not promote tobacco use. The bench also noted that challenges under COTPA should be addressed by the expert authorities constituted under the statute rather than through public interest litigation.

“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,” the Supreme Court said, emphasizing that the depiction of smoking in a literary context is qualitatively different from advertising tobacco in public spaces. The court also highlighted that mere personal disagreement with an author’s views or public image does not translate into legal action.

Petitioner’s Argument and Court’s Response

Senior advocate N. Gopakumaran Nair, representing the petitioner, argued that the cover violated public policy and the law by showing Roy smoking a beedi without a health warning. He suggested that such imagery could glamorize smoking for young readers and mislead them into perceiving it as fashionable.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed these concerns as lacking legal foundation. “There is a disclaimer in the book. The author is a renowned person who has carved out a name for herself. The publisher is also well-known. 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 publicity?” the bench asked.

The court also noted that the tobacco control regulations pertain to advertisements, public displays, and commercial promotions of tobacco, not creative representations in literary works. It further emphasized that the presence of a disclaimer clarifies the author and publisher’s intention and prevents any misinterpretation by readers.

Public Interest and Artistic Freedom

The bench highlighted the importance of safeguarding creative freedom while balancing concerns about public health. “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,” the court concluded.

The petition before the Supreme Court was an appeal against the Kerala High Court’s ruling. The high court had remarked that the PIL appeared to be motivated more by publicity than genuine public interest. It criticized the petitioner for not approaching the statutory authority responsible for enforcing COTPA regulations before filing the case and for failing to verify the presence of the disclaimer on the book.

Conclusion

By dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that artistic works enjoy protection under the law, provided there is no intent to advertise or promote illegal or harmful activities. In this case, the depiction of Arundhati Roy smoking a beedi on the cover of her book was recognized as a creative choice rather than a public health violation. The judgment underscores the balance the judiciary seeks between freedom of expression and regulatory oversight, ensuring that literary and artistic expression is not unduly curtailed under the guise of public interest.

---