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
To Celebrate 100 Years In A Sport Is Great Achievement, Says Ashok Kumar, World Cup Winner In 1975
Erling Haaland problem could spell danger for Man City as striker enters uncharted waters
UK weather forecast maps show exact date huge white barrage of snow arrives
From Mexican immigrant to New Orleans: Ex-TV journalist elected new mayor — Who is Helena Moreno?
Hidden hill stations in India: You may not have heard of these 7 hidden hill stations; 90% of people don't visit them.
