On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition that contested a Kerala High Court ruling, which had rejected a request to prohibit the distribution of Arundhati Roy's book Mother Mary Comes to Me. The controversy centered around the book's cover, which features an image of Roy smoking a cigarette.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that Roy did not endorse smoking and noted that the book's audience would be limited to those who choose to purchase it.

The court concluded that there was no breach of any law regarding the book's cover.

This book was launched on August 28.

The petitioner, a lawyer, had previously filed a public interest litigation in the High Court, claiming that the book cover breached the 2003 Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution Act, along with the 2008 regulations.

This legislation requires health warnings, such as “smoking is injurious to health” or “tobacco causes cancer,” to accompany any depiction of smoking. The petitioner argued that the absence of such warnings on the book cover constituted an indirect promotion of tobacco products.

On October 13, the High Court dismissed the petition, suggesting it was filed for self-promotion.

“Courts must ensure that PIL is not misused as a vehicle for self-publicity or for engaging in personal slander,” the High Court remarked. “The petitioner has chosen to file this PIL only to garner self-publicity and to cast personal aspersions on respondent Arundhati Roy. We agree.”

The court also highlighted that Penguin India, the book's publisher, had included a disclaimer on the back cover, which the petitioner failed to acknowledge.

During the Supreme Court hearings, advocate Gopal Kumaran, representing the petitioner, contended that the cover depicted Roy smoking a bidi without the required warnings.

Kumaran further expressed uncertainty over whether she was smoking tobacco or ganja.

In response, Chief Justice Kant remarked that Roy is a distinguished author and her work does not appear to promote smoking.

“The publisher is also a renowned publisher,” Kant stated. “If the literature does not promote it, why is it your concern? This seems unnecessary for popularity.”

The Chief Justice pointed out that the book cover was not being advertised on large billboards and that readers would be drawn to the book for its content and the author's reputation, rather than solely for the cover image.

The petitioner's counsel also claimed that the disclaimer on the back cover was written in small print.

To this, the Chief Justice replied that the book was not intended to promote cigarettes and therefore did not require a disclaimer under the relevant Act.

The Supreme Court indicated that it found no justification to intervene with the High Court's ruling.