The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition challenging a Kerala High Court order that dismissed a plea seeking a ban on the circulation of author Arundhati Roy’s book Mother Mary Comes to Me, with the cover picture showing her smoking a cigarette, reported Live Law.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that Roy had not promoted or advertised smoking, adding that the viewership of the book was restricted to those who would buy it, Bar and Bench reported.

There was no violation of any law, added the bench.

The book was released on August 28.

Subsequently, the petitioner, a lawyer, filed a public interest litigation in the High Court alleging that the book cover violated the 2003 Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution Act, and the 2008 rules.

The Act mandates the addition of health warnings such as “smoking is injurious to health” or “tobacco causes cancer” on all depictions of smoking. The petitioner argued that the book cover did not have the mandatory warning, which amounted to an indirect advertisement of tobacco products.

On October 13, the High Court dismissed the petition and ruled that it appeared to be filed for self-publicity.

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

It had also noted that Penguin India, the publisher of the book, had included a disclaimer on the back cover, a fact the petitioner failed to mention in the petition.

During the proceedings in the Supreme Court, advocate Gopal Kumaran, representing the petitioner, argued that the book cover showed Roy smoking a bidi without the statutory warnings, Live Law reported.

Kumaran further claimed that it was not certain whether she was smoking tobacco or ganja.

In response, the chief justice noted that Roy was an eminent author, adding that her literature did not seem to promote smoking.

“The publisher is also a renowned publisher,” Live Law quoted Kant as saying. “…the literature as such does not promote it, why is it your problem? Unnecessarily for popularity.”

The chief justice said that the book cover was not being advertised on big hoardings across cities. A reader would buy the book because of its contents and the credibility of the author, and not only because of the cover image, he added.

The counsel for the petitioner also said that the disclaimer at the back of the book was written in minute words.

To this, the chief justice said that the book was not written for the promotion of cigarettes and would not need a disclaimer under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution Act, Live Law reported.

The Supreme Court said that it saw no reason to interfere with the High Court order.