The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking a stay on the sale of author Arundhati Roy's newly released book over its cover photo showing her smoking.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kochi native Rajsimhan.
The petitioner claimed that the cover image of the book "Mother Mary Comes to Me" violated statutory norms as it showed the author smoking without the mandated health warning label.
However, counsel for the Booker Prize-winning author argued that the petition was filed without adequate research and noticing the publisher's disclaimer clarifying that the image was not intended to promote smoking.
The court observed that any alleged violation of Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA) - which deals with the prohibition of direct and indirect advertisement of tobacco products - must be determined by the competent authority under the Act.
Noting that the petitioner had not approached the concerned authority and had ignored the disclaimer, the bench held that invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction through a PIL was unwarranted.
Dismissing the plea, the court cautioned that PILs should not be used as a vehicle for self-publicity or personal slander.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kochi native Rajsimhan.
The petitioner claimed that the cover image of the book "Mother Mary Comes to Me" violated statutory norms as it showed the author smoking without the mandated health warning label.
However, counsel for the Booker Prize-winning author argued that the petition was filed without adequate research and noticing the publisher's disclaimer clarifying that the image was not intended to promote smoking.
The court observed that any alleged violation of Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA) - which deals with the prohibition of direct and indirect advertisement of tobacco products - must be determined by the competent authority under the Act.
Noting that the petitioner had not approached the concerned authority and had ignored the disclaimer, the bench held that invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction through a PIL was unwarranted.
Dismissing the plea, the court cautioned that PILs should not be used as a vehicle for self-publicity or personal slander.
You may also like
BREAKING: England star forced out of squad vs Latvia after suffering injury blow
Donald Trump's 'bullying rejected by angry voters' with NHS price hikes petition
Gaza peace deal: Russia questions Trump's plan; 'too vague' on Palestinian statehood
Court extends custody of Ashok Kumar Pal by 3 days in Reliance Energy fake bank guarantee case
5 players PBKS might release ahead of IPL 2026 auction
