The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has declined to grant interim relief in petitions challenging a government notification that declared 25 books forfeited under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, for allegedly propagating secessionism. A three-judge special bench (Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal, and Justice Shahzad Azeem) issued notice on the petitions but refused to stay the forfeiture. The bench also refused a PIL seeking relief, observing that it was not in the ‘public interest’ and remarking that “90% of people would not understand the issue.”
The forfeiture notification, issued by the Home Department of the Union Territory government, was published on August 5. It listed books on Kashmir’s political and social history authored by academics and public figures including Sumantra Bose, Arundhati Roy, A. G. Noorani, Seema Kazi, Hafsa Kanjwal, and Victoria Schofield. Many of the books are published by recognized academic presses such as Oxford University Press, Stanford University Press, and Routledge. The notification alleges that the books propagate false narratives, glorify terrorism, vilify security forces, distort historical facts, and promote youth alienation—thus allegedly exciting secessionism and endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The petitioners—Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Kapil Kak, author Dr. Sumantra Bose, peace scholar Dr. Radha Kumar, and former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah—filed petitions under Sections 99 read with 528 of the BNS, challenging the notification as arbitrary, sweeping, and unreasoned. They argue that the order fails to identify specific portions or passages from the books which allegedly violate the law, instead merely reproducing statutory language. They invoke precedent that requires the grounds for such governmental decisions to be discernible from the order itself, including content that shows how a work tends to offend or endanger.
The notification declares the books forfeited under Section 98 BNS and empowers the government to issue search warrants to seize them. The petitioners contend that the requirements under law—namely provision of grounds, identification of offending content, and explanation of how the books’ content violates the statute—have not been met.
While interim relief has been denied, the Court has issued notice to the respondents to respond to the challenge. The writ petitions remain pending.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.