New Delhi: A petition challenging the official ban on 25 books in Jammu and Kashmir on August 5 this year was mentioned before the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court on September 30.

The Jammu and Kashmir administration had banned the books, some of which have been authored by top Indian and foreign writers and historians, for “promoting secessionism” and “inciting violence against [the] Indian state” in the Union territory.

Advocate Vrinda Grover mentioned the petition filed by former Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s grandnephew Sumantra Bose who is the author of two of the books in which were banned, author and former J&K interlocuter Radha Kumar and Former Chief Information Commissioner of India, Wajahat Habibullah.

The petitioners have said that the order restricts the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the “right to know”.

"The Impugned Order provides no grounds or basis to arrive at the conclusion that, "...25 books have been identified that propagate false narrative and secessionism in J&K, and need to be declared as forfeited. It docs not set out any portion(s) of the concerned
books to demonstrate why the same have been determined to propagate "false narrative and secessionism." Mere broad statements reproducing statutory provisions or referencing the contents of statutory provisions, without depicting how the same has been inferred from the content(s) of the book(s), does not meet the threshold of a 'reasoned order' envisaged in Section 98 BNSS," the petitioners said.

They also said that "the mode and manner in which the said books were identified has also not been set out in the Impugned Order. It is settled law that an administrative or Quasi-judicial order having civil consequences must disclose reasons which must form part of the order itself, and the reasons cannot be supplied at a later stage."

The petitioners said that the forfeiture provision of Section 98 of the BNSS “cannot be used to erase the lived realities and people’s histories, as that would amount to an erasure of the nation’s history which violently militates against the people’s right to know”. They added that such “works of history, published through academic rigour, research and thoroughness, are open to be debated, but cannot be erased on the basis of fleeting sensitivities that may get hurt of people incapable of engaging with dissenting or alternate views”.

Chief Justice Arun Palli said that he will look at the papers and then pass orders for the constitution of a special bench of three judges as per Section 99(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, at the earliest.

Section 99 of BNSS has the procedure that is to be followed to set aside the declaration of a forfeiture. The sub-section 2 has it that such an application must be heard by a high court bench of three or more judges.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.