Jammu Kashmir High Court to Form Special Bench on Challenge to Forfeiture of 25 Books

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Tuesday said it would constitute a special three-judge Bench to hear a petition challenging the government’s decision to forfeit 25 books on Kashmir’s politics and society under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Chief Justice Arun Palli indicated that orders would be passed shortly for setting up the Bench, as required under Section 99 of the BNSS, which mandates a three-judge panel for such applications.

The petition was mentioned by advocate Vrinda Grover, who represents retired Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, political scientist Dr Sumantra Bose, peace scholar Dr Radha Kumar, and former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah. They have challenged an August 5 government notification (SO. 203) that declared the 25 books “forfeited” for allegedly propagating false narratives and secessionism.

The forfeiture order, issued by the Home Department and published in the official Gazette, accuses the listed books of “glorifying terrorism, vilifying security forces, distorting historical facts, and promoting alienation,” claiming they have contributed to youth radicalisation in Jammu and Kashmir.

The banned works include Azadi by Arundhati Roy, The Kashmir Dispute 1947–2012 by constitutional expert AG Noorani, and Kashmir at the Crossroads by Dr Sumantra Bose. Other authors named in the list include Hafsa Kanjwal, Ather Zia, David Devadas, Victoria Schofield, Seema Kazi, and Tariq Ali, with many titles published by leading academic presses such as Oxford University Press, Routledge, and Stanford University Press.

In their petition filed under Section 99 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the authors and public figures contend that the forfeiture order is arbitrary and unreasoned, failing to meet the statutory requirements of Section 98.

They argue that the notification merely reproduces statutory language and sweeping assertions, without identifying specific portions of the books that allegedly incite secessionism or threaten national integrity. The petition cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in Narayan Das Indurakhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972), which held that quoting statutory provisions without disclosing underlying grounds does not amount to a reasoned order.

“The procedural safeguards envisaged by the BNSS cannot be short-circuited by administrative verbosity masquerading as reasons,” the petitioners submitted, pointing out that the order lacks reference to facts, passages, or content analysis.

The plea emphasises that the government must distinguish between its ‘opinion’ and the ‘grounds’ for forming such an opinion, and that the latter must be discernible from the order itself. Reliance is also placed on Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Arun Ranjan Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, both of which required that forfeiture orders demonstrate the “import, effect, or tendency” of the publications with specific references.

The Home Department notification had stated that intelligence inputs showed the books acted as “systematic dissemination of false narratives and secessionist literature,” becoming “a significant driver” of radicalisation in Jammu and Kashmir. It accused the publications of creating a culture of grievance and terrorist heroism, warning that they distorted historical narratives under the guise of academic commentary.

The government invoked Section 98 of the BNSS to forfeit the publications and cited Sections 152, 196, and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, to argue that the books endanger the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The order empowers authorities to seize all physical and digital copies of the works listed in the Annexure of the notification.

The case, titled Kapil Kak & Ors v. Government of J&K, 2025, is being closely followed by academics, civil liberties advocates, and free speech groups. Critics argue that the move amounts to suppression of scholarship and dissent, while the administration maintains that the ban is a national security imperative.

The High Court’s decision to set up a three-judge Bench sets the stage for a landmark legal battle over the limits of free expression, academic freedom, and state power in Jammu and Kashmir.