This case highlights a legal intersection between artistic expression and public health regulations. while arundhati roy’s choice of cover imagery may be within her creative rights as an author, it also risks being interpreted as an implicit endorsement or normalization of smoking behavior. Section 5 strictly limits advertisements that suggest tobacco consumption, but whether this applies to non-commercial artistic representations remains legally ambiguous.
The Kerala High Court’s concern about properly approaching regulatory authorities reflects due diligence before exercising judicial intervention.If prescribed processes under legislation were bypassed here, it could set precedents for similar disputes across India affecting literature and art.
The upcoming hearing is significant in determining how broadly public health laws are applied in cases involving creative freedom. A ruling either way could affect how authors navigate visual elements in their works moving forward without inadvertently inviting legal challenges.
Read more: Link