The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that a public interest litigation (PIL) filed questioning the lack of mandatory health warnings on the cover of author Arundhati Roy's recent book Mother Mary Comes to Me, which features an image of the author smoking a cigarette, contains several serious shortcomings.

The petitioner, advocate Rajasimhan, had objected that the image of the author smoking portrays tobacco use as a symbol of intellectual and creative expression, thereby glorifying it. He had alleged the absence of a warning declaration about the adverse effects of tobacco consumption.Monte Carlo Mens Solid Lace Up Genuine Leather Casual Shoes (201803FW)

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, while expressing objections to the PIL, noted that the petitioner had not mentioned that the publishers had included a disclaimer related to smoking on the back of the book. Addressing the petitioner, the court remarked, "What is this, counsel? You should have filed a PIL stating at least that such a disclaimer declaration exists. When filing a public interest litigation, how can you say you haven't looked at the book? What kind of public interest litigation is this? We should impose a fine." Also Read: “End of an Era: IAF Retires MiG-21 Bison After 62 Years of Supersonic Legacy”

The court, upon reviewing the details presented in an affidavit by the book's publishers, Penguin Random House India, noted the presence of the warning declaration. The publishers argued that the PIL had been filed without proper research and without noticing the disclaimer on the back cover stating that they 'do not endorse tobacco use'.

Taking note of this, the court today asked the petitioner whether they wished to continue the case in court or approach the relevant government authority to resolve the issues they had raised. They clarified that they had no objection to the book's content or literature and expressed their intent to proceed with the case in court. Accordingly, the court adjourned the next hearing of the case to October 7.

"The petitioner's counsel has stated that they intend to argue the case on merits. The court has adjourned the matter to October 7, 2025. The respondents have been informed to seek imposition of costs in the PIL," the court stated in its order.