J&K High Court to form special bench to hear plea against forfeiture of 25 books on Kashmir
Srinagar, Sept 30: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh is set to constitute a Special Bench of three judges to hear a petition challenging the government’s controversial notification declaring 25 books on Kashmir’s political and social history as “forfeited” under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for allegedly propagating secessionist narratives and false historical accounts.
Chief Justice Arun Palli indicated that an order constituting the three-judge bench, a statutory requirement for such matters, would be issued shortly. The development follows a plea mentioned before the Chief Justice by senior advocate Vrinda Grover, who argued that the petitioners are seeking relief under Section 99(1) BNSS to overturn the August 5, 2025, government notification (S.O. 203) issued by the Home Department of J&K.
The notification, published in the official gazette, alleges that the “systematic dissemination of false narratives and secessionist literature” contained in the listed books has contributed to radicalising youth in Jammu and Kashmir, glorifying terrorism, vilifying security forces, distorting historical facts, and promoting alienation. It claims the books “excite secessionism and endanger the sovereignty and integrity of India,” invoking provisions of Sections 152, 196, and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The 25 banned titles include works by noted scholars and authors such as Sumantra Bose, A.G. Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Seema Kazi, Hafsa Kanjwal, and Victoria Schofield, many published by prestigious academic houses like Oxford University Press, Stanford University Press, and Routledge.
The petition, filed under Section 99, read with Section 528 BNSS, was filed by prominent figures, including Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) Kapil Kak, author Dr. Sumantra Bose, peace scholar, Dr. Radha Kumar, and former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah challenge the notification as arbitrary, vague, and legally unsustainable. The petitioners argue that the government’s order fails to satisfy the legal standards required under Section 98 BNSS, as it does not identify any specific passages in the books that purportedly propagate secessionism, nor does it provide a reasoned basis for the sweeping forfeiture.
“The order merely reproduces the statutory language without pointing to facts, excerpts, or representations from the books that offend the law,” the petition states, citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Narayan Das Indurakhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972), which held that simply quoting statutory provisions without disclosing the underlying grounds does not meet the requirement of a reasoned order. The petition also refers to Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Arun Ranjan Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, where the apex court stressed that the “grounds” for an opinion must relate to the import, effect, or tendency of a publication, as demonstrated through specific content or analysis.
The petitioners emphasise the crucial distinction between the government’s “opinion” and the “grounds” upon which that opinion is based. They argue that the lack of detailed justification renders the notification unconstitutional, as it impinges on freedom of expression and academic inquiry, while failing to demonstrate how the works allegedly violate the law.
Legal experts note that the case could become a landmark test of the balance between national security and constitutional freedoms, particularly academic freedom and the right to dissent. The formation of a special three-judge bench signals the significance of the challenge, which could have far-reaching implications for intellectual discourse, historical scholarship, and civil liberties in the region.
The government, however, has defended its decision, maintaining that the books in question contribute to radicalisation and pose a threat to national security. Officials argue that curbing the spread of such content is essential to safeguard sovereignty and maintain peace in Jammu and Kashmir.
As the High Court prepares to hear the challenge, the case is expected to draw wide attention from legal, academic, and human rights circles in India and abroad. Its outcome could redefine the contours of permissible action under BNSS and BNS, and its implications may extend beyond Jammu and Kashmir to broader debates on free expression, historical memory, and state power. — (Compiled with inputs from Live Law)
