Kerala High Court Scrutinizes PIL Against Arundhati Roy Book, Warns of Costs for Lack of Research

Kochi, India – The Kerala High Court has issued a stern admonishment to a lawyer who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against author Arundhati Roy's book, 'Mother Mary Comes To Me', highlighting critical questions about the due diligence required for such petitions and the potential for imposing exemplary costs. The case, Rajasimhan v. Union of India , has become a significant judicial discourse on the responsibilities of petitioners and the proper use of the PIL mechanism.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji on Thursday, September 25, sharply questioned the petitioner's conduct, particularly the failure to disclose a disclaimer printed on the book's back cover while seeking a stay on its sale. The PIL was filed on the grounds that the book's front cover, featuring a photograph of the author smoking, violated the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA).

The Heart of the Controversy: A Suppressed Disclaimer

The proceedings took a decisive turn when the publisher, Penguin Random House India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 4), presented its counter-affidavit. The publisher included a photograph of the book's back cover, which clearly features the disclaimer: "Any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Penguin Random House India does not promote or endorse tobacco use."

The Court seized upon this point, questioning the petitioner’s counsel as to why this material fact was omitted from the PIL. The counsel’s admission that the petitioner had only seen the front cover and had not examined the entire book drew severe criticism from the bench.

"What kind of PIL is this?" the Court orally remarked, expressing its displeasure. "The 4th respondent has raised serious objections saying that the PIL was not properly researched. Should we impose costs or do you want to go before the authority?"

The bench further underscored the gravity of suppressing material facts. "There is a disclaimer at the end. If you had dealt with the disclaimer saying it was not enough, we can understand. How can you suppress?" the Court stated, directly addressing the petitioner's counsel. This line of questioning moves beyond a simple procedural lapse to an issue of professional ethics and the duty of candor owed to the court.

Judicial Scrutiny of a PIL's Foundation

The hearing served as a masterclass in the preliminary scrutiny applied to PILs. The bench repeatedly questioned the "entertainability" of a petition filed with such a superficial basis. The petitioner admitted to having only taken a photograph of the book at a stall without ever presenting the physical book to the court.

The court's order, dictated in open court, formally recorded these concerns: "Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 takes serious objection that the PIL was filed without doing proper research, without even noticing disclaimer on the book... To a query as to why this was not disclosed, the counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has not seen the entire book. Question arises as to the entertainability of such PIL."

This judicial observation sends a clear message to the legal fraternity: a PIL cannot be founded on incomplete or cursory observations. It requires a thorough investigation of the facts, including those that may be contrary to the petitioner's claim.

Alternative Remedies and the Threat of Exemplary Costs

Throughout the hearing, the Court offered the petitioner an alternative path: to approach the competent authority established under the COTPA framework. This reflects a judicial preference for exhausting statutory remedies before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

However, the petitioner's counsel, after taking instructions, insisted on arguing the matter on its merits. This decision prompted a direct warning from the bench about the potential financial consequences.

"We are putting you to notice that if we hear the matter on merits we will look into conduct of not even looking at the book and their prayer of exemplary costs. Take a decision today," the Court cautioned. Penguin Random House had explicitly sought the imposition of exemplary costs, a prayer the Court indicated it would seriously consider.

The insistence on arguing the merits, despite the identified flaws in the petition, appears to have solidified the Court's view of the petitioner's conduct. The Court's final order for the day noted: "...counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner intends to argue the matter on merits...The petitioner will also note that the respondent has sought for exemplary cost..."

Implications for Legal Practice and PIL Jurisprudence

This case provides several critical takeaways for legal practitioners, especially those engaged in public interest litigation:

1. Mandatory Due Diligence: The era of filing PILs based on media reports or fleeting observations is under intense judicial scrutiny. The Court's reaction demonstrates an expectation that petitioners conduct comprehensive research, anticipating and addressing potential counter-arguments, such as the existence of a disclaimer.
2. Duty Against Suppression: The suppression of a material fact, whether intentional or due to negligence, can be fatal to a petition. The Court's focus on the undisclosed disclaimer suggests that such omissions can lead not only to dismissal but also to punitive costs.
3. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: The judiciary is increasingly reluctant to entertain matters where a specific statutory authority exists to address the grievance. The repeated suggestion to approach the COTPA authority signals a filtering mechanism to prevent the overburdening of High Courts.
4. The Real Threat of Costs: The Court's explicit warning about considering exemplary costs is a significant deterrent against frivolous, vexatious, or poorly prepared litigation. It reinforces the principle that while the doors of justice are open, they are not to be approached casually.

As the petitioner's counsel attempted to argue that the grievance was limited to the front cover and that the disclaimer should have been placed there, the Court remained unimpressed, highlighting the fundamental failure to engage with the book as a whole. "How can PIL petitioner say that it has not even seen the book?" the bench queried, encapsulating the core issue of the day's proceedings.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 7, when the petitioner will have to argue the case on its merits under the shadow of potential costs and judicial disapproval of their methods. The outcome will be closely watched as it may set a stronger precedent for the standards expected of public interest litigants in the Kerala High Court and beyond.