In a notable development on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court agreed to consider constituting a special three-judge bench to address a petition challenging the seemingly ‘sweeping and unreasoned forfeiture’ of 25 books. These books were banned by the J&K government on grounds of ‘propagating false narrative and secessionism’ within the region. Among the notable works targeted by this order are books by esteemed Constitutional expert A.G. Noorani and acclaimed author Arundhati Roy.
The collective petition was initiated by a group of distinguished individuals: former Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak; Dr. Sumantra Bose, who has two of his own books listed among the forfeited titles; author Dr. Radha Kumar; and former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah. Their legal representation, comprising advocates Vrinda Grover, Adil Pandit, Routine Banerjee, and Devika Tulsiani, highlighted the urgency of an early hearing for the plea.
The core of the petition directly challenges the J&K government’s notification issued on August 5, which declared the 25 books forfeited. It describes this action as arbitrary and invokes Section 99 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to overturn the forfeiture order.
According to the petitioners, the collection of 25 books predominantly delves into the socio-political landscape of Kashmir and the intricate political struggles that are deeply woven into the valley’s cultural history. Many of these works are academic in nature, serving as crucial historical records.
During her arguments, Ms. Grover contended that the ban order was based on overly broad statements, lacking specific details or elaborations on how the books’ contents actually jeopardize national security or present dishonest narratives. Crucially, the forfeiture order failed to specify the criteria or process by which these 25 books were identified as promoting secessionist views.
The petition emphasizes a well-established legal principle: any administrative or quasi-judicial order that carries civil consequences must clearly articulate its reasons within the order itself. These justifications, it states, cannot be supplied or supplemented at a later stage.
Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the J&K administration’s failure to identify and include the specific contentious content from the books, or even to make a passing reference to it within the order, constitutes a ‘fatal illegality’ that cannot be rectified retrospectively.
“The order merely echoes the State government’s opinion without providing the necessary grounds for forming that opinion, as legally required,” the petition underscored.
Ultimately, the petition implores the High Court to protect the integrity of academic disciplines like history and literature. It also calls upon the court to ensure that the public’s fundamental ‘right to know’, a vital component of freedom of speech and expression, is not undermined by excessive administrative interference.