PIL Against Arundhati Roy Book Cover

Source : Indian Express  

Introduction 

Renowned author and activist finds herself at the center of an unusual legal controversy. Her latest book "Mother Mary Comes to Me" is facing a court challenge not for its content, but for its cover image. The Kerala High Court is hearing a public interest litigation that seeks to ban the book's sale and circulation, raising important questions about artistic expression and tobacco advertising laws. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The legal trouble began when advocate filed a petition in the Kerala High Court on September 17, targeting book cover. The cover features a photograph of a young smoking a beedi (a traditional Indian cigarette).  
• The petitioner argues that this image violates tobacco control laws because it lacks the mandatory health warning that "smoking is injurious to health" or "tobacco causes cancer." 
• According to the petition, the cover violates the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act of 2003, (COTPA).  
• The advocate claims that since She is a globally recognized public intellectual, her image smoking could influence young readers and indirectly promote tobacco use. The petition specifically targets three sections of the COTPA law that deal with tobacco advertising and health warnings. 
• The case has drawn attention because it represents an unusual application of tobacco control laws to book covers. While the law clearly governs cigarette advertisements and product packaging, its application to literary works remains questionable. 
• The petitioner argues that the book cover amounts to indirect advertising of tobacco products, given her celebrity status and influence over readers. 

What was the Court’s Observations ? 

• While the Kerala High Court's detailed observations are still awaited as the case proceeds, the legal challenge raises significant questions about the scope of tobacco control laws.  
• The court will need to determine whether a book cover can be considered "advertising" under the existing legal framework. 
• The case highlights the tension between public health objectives and artistic freedom. Legal experts suggest that courts typically take a narrow interpretation of advertising laws to avoid restricting creative expression. However, the unique circumstances of this case - involving a celebrity author whose image could potentially influence behavior - may require careful judicial consideration. 
• The court will likely examine whether the COTPA law was intended to cover such situations and whether extending its application to book covers would set a concerning precedent for artistic and editorial freedom. 

Does COTPA, 2003 Apply to Book Covers? 

• The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act of 2003 was designed to control tobacco advertising and regulate the tobacco trade. The law prohibits smoking in public places, restricts cigarette advertisements, and mandates health warnings on tobacco product packaging. 
• The petition focuses on three key sections of the act. Section 5 completely prohibits advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. Section 7 requires health warnings on all tobacco product packaging and labels. Section 8 specifies that these warnings must be "legible and prominent," "conspicuous in size and color," and "visible to consumers before the package is opened." 
• However, legal analysis reveals that these sections specifically target commercial tobacco products and their advertising. The law does not contain provisions that directly govern photographs in books or other literary works. The COTPA primarily addresses commercial advertising, product packaging, and tobacco sales - not artistic or editorial content. 
• The rules under the act do address tobacco imagery in cinema and television, requiring health warnings during smoking scenes and mandating 'A' certificates for such content. However, these provisions specifically mention audiovisual media and do not extend to printed books or their covers. 
• Notably, publisher, Penguin Random House India, has included a disclaimer on the book's back cover stating: "Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representation purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use." This proactive step demonstrates awareness of potential concerns while maintaining editorial freedom. 

Conclusion 

This case represents a unique intersection of public health law and artistic expression. While the petitioner's concerns about tobacco promotion are understandable, applying commercial advertising laws to book covers could set a dangerous precedent for creative freedom. The Kerala High Court's decision will likely balance public health objectives with fundamental rights to artistic expression. The outcome could significantly impact how authors, publishers, and artists approach sensitive subject matter in their creative works, making this case far more significant than a simple book cover controve