SC Declines to Hear Plea Against J&K Ban on 25 Books, Says High Court Proper Forum
Petition before Supreme Court challenged J&K government’s forfeiture of 25 books under BNSS, calling Section 98 vague, disproportionate, and a threat to free expression;
The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the Jammu and Kashmir government’s notification declaring 25 books “forfeited” on grounds of promoting secessionism and threatening India’s sovereignty, holding that the matter should be pursued before the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi said the issues involved could be more effectively addressed through a writ petition under Article 226.
The Bench requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a three-judge bench presided over by him to hear the matter and decide it at the earliest. The Court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, argued that unlike earlier cases in Punjab & Haryana and other states where bans were imposed on individual books, the J&K notification covered a series of publications, raising concerns about the wide sweep of the provision. He submitted that the law’s all-India operation enabled even a small state official to trigger a nationwide ban, which was “overbroad.”
Justice Surya Kant, however, observed that High Courts should not be bypassed and were better positioned to assess the local context of such issues, especially since some of the listed books dealt with regional concerns. He underlined that High Courts are constitutional courts competent to adjudicate such challenges.
While Hegde sought a direction to the Union government to file a reply and suggested the matter could be transferred to another High Court, Justice Kant remarked that such a move would be “demoralizing.”
The Bench ultimately directed that the petitioner may raise all contentions before the High Court, which would consider the matter independently.
The petition, filed through AoR Ibad Mushtaq under Article 32, assails Notification No. S.O. 203 dated August 5, 2025, which directed the en masse forfeiture of multiple historical, academic, and political works; some in circulation for decades, on the ground that they constituted “seditious or secessionist literature.”
The petitioner has argued that the measure violates the fundamental rights to free expression (Article 19), equality (Article 14), and life with dignity and privacy (Article 21). It is contended that the government’s order equates dissent and criticism with sedition, thereby creating a chilling effect on free speech and undermining democratic discourse.
Calling the notification “vague, arbitrary and disproportionate,” the plea highlights that no proximate nexus was established between the banned works and any actual incidents of violence or incitement. Instead, it claims that diverse academic, feminist, and historical narratives have been lumped together under a blanket label of “secessionist” without any specific offending passages being identified.
The petition further challenges Section 98 of the BNSS itself, describing it as an unfettered and unguided executive power of prior restraint. The provision, the petitioner argues, lacks objective standards, fails to provide a pre-decisional hearing, and imposes the most extreme measure, total forfeiture, without exploring less intrusive alternatives such as redaction of specific portions.
Citing Modern Dental College v. State of MP (2016), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the plea asserts that Section 98 fails the test of proportionality and due process. Reliance has also been placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) to argue that the absence of procedural safeguards violates the principle of fairness.
“The impugned provision chills academic freedom, erases access to knowledge long in the public domain, and equates criticism of the State with sedition without any direct connection to incitement of violence,” the plea states.
The petition prays for Section 98 of the BNSS to be declared unconstitutional, void, and inoperative, and for the quashing of Notification S.O. 203 dated August 5, 2025, as violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shakir Shabir v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Hearing Date: August 29, 2025
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi