The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict on Friday, stating that a photograph of celebrated author Arundhati Roy smoking a 'bidi' on her book cover does not violate the country's tobacco advertisement laws. The court ruled that such an image does not constitute an advertisement under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003, and therefore does not require a statutory health warning.
Court Dismisses Publicity Stunt Argument
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the appeal challenging a Kerala High Court decision. The appellant, represented by senior advocate S Gopakumaran, had argued that the cover photograph was a publicity stunt and a defiance of the COTPA Act, 2003. He sought a directive for the publication of a statutory warning alongside the image.
The bench, however, firmly rejected this argument. The judges emphasized that both Arundhati Roy, an eminent literary figure, and her publishing house are well-established entities that do not require such publicity stunts. They pointedly asked the petitioner, "What is your problem?" asserting that the book's content does not promote tobacco products in any manner.
Book Cover is Not a City Hoarding: SC's Rationale
The Supreme Court provided clear reasoning for its decision, drawing a sharp distinction between a book cover and conventional advertising. The bench stated that the photograph on the cover page cannot be equated with a hoarding or billboard in a city, which would typically fall under the purview of the advertisement regulations requiring warnings.
"Readers do not buy a book by its cover photograph. They do so after finding who the author is," the bench observed, highlighting the intent and context behind a consumer's purchase of a literary work. This context, the court found, is fundamentally different from a direct advertisement for tobacco.
Concerns Over Youth Influence Addressed
During the proceedings, the petitioner raised concerns that a public figure like Arundhati Roy prominently displaying smoking on a book cover could encourage young people and prove detrimental to society. The court acknowledged these concerns but found sufficient safeguard in a disclaimer present on the back cover of the book.
The bench noted that the disclaimer clarifies that the cover page does not promote smoking. This, combined with the overall context, led the court to conclude that the photograph is not an advertisement for tobacco products and thus does not infringe upon the provisions of the 2003 Act.
The Supreme Court's judgment reinforces the importance of context in interpreting advertisement laws, especially when applied to artistic and literary expressions. It underscores that not every depiction of a regulated product amounts to its promotion, particularly when it is part of an author's personal portrayal on a book cover.
