J&K High Court Declines Interim Relief Against Forfeiture of 25 Books Alleged to Promote Secessionism
SRINAGAR: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday (October 13) refused to grant interim relief in petitions challenging the forfeiture of 25 books under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly promoting secessionist ideas.
A special three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal, and Justice Shahzad Azeem declined to stay the operation of the forfeiture order but issued notices to the respondents on the petitions. However, the bench refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the matter, observing that it was “not in public interest” and that “90% of people would not understand the issue.”
The petitions challenge an August 5 notification issued by the Jammu & Kashmir administration declaring 25 books on Kashmir’s political and social history as “forfeited” under Section 98 BNS for allegedly “propagating false narratives and secessionism.” The provision empowers the State Government to confiscate publications deemed to threaten sovereignty, integrity, or public order, and to issue search warrants accordingly.
The plea—filed by Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) Kapil Kak, author Dr. Sumantra Bose, peace scholar Dr. Radha Kumar, and former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah—contends that the government’s order is “arbitrary, sweeping, and unreasoned,” failing to meet the statutory requirements under Section 98 BNS.
The petitioners argue that the notification does not specify which parts of the books are considered objectionable or demonstrate how they propagate secessionist ideas. They assert that the order merely repeats the legal wording without providing a factual basis, contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Narayan Das Indurakhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972), which held that quoting statutory provisions without explaining the grounds does not meet the standard of a reasoned order.
Citing precedents including Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Arun Ranjan Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, the petition stresses that the government must disclose the “grounds” underlying its opinion—specifically the content, import, or tendency of the publication alleged to be objectionable.
The government’s notification claims that the “systematic dissemination of false narratives and secessionist literature” has contributed to youth radicalisation in J&K by glorifying terrorism, vilifying security forces, and distorting historical facts. It alleges that the listed books “excite secessionism and endanger the sovereignty and integrity of India,” invoking provisions of Sections 152, 196, and 197 of the BNS.
The 25 forfeited titles include works by noted scholars and authors such as Sumantra Bose, A.G. Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Seema Kazi, Hafsa Kanjwal, and Victoria Schofield, published by reputed academic presses like Oxford University Press, Stanford University Press, and Routledge.
