NEW DELHI: The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has expressed outrage over the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir Government’s home department headed by lieutenant governor Manoj Sinha to forfeit 25 book titles in an omnibus order under Section 98 of the BNSS, for “promoting secessionism” and “inciting violence against [the] Indian state” in the Union territory.
In a statement issued by its national president Kavita Srivastava and general secretary V. Suresh, the PUCL termed the notification “an arbitrary and brute exercise of power by the state uncanalised by the discipline of the Constitution”.
“What the state is seeking to tell the citizens is that any opinion which is not the opinion of the state cannot be tolerated. This is a form of totalitarian thinking which is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy,” said the PUCL statement.
“By the mass forfeiting of books, the Jammu and Kashmir government is utilising a colonial, British-era law (Section 95 of the colonial, British era, CrPC finds its Bharatiya or so-called decolonial avatar, as Section 98 of the BNSS) which was designed to suppress demands for Indian independence. This law has been used by the British to ban canonical texts like Hind Swaraj by Mahatma Gandhi,” the statement added.
PUCL said that among the 25 books forfeited are books by Anuradha Bhasin, Sumantra Bose, Tariq Ali, A.G. Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Ather Zia and a host of others, books that give a flavour of the realms traversed covering history, memory, poetry and politics.
“These books represent a vibrant intellectual culture of thinking and writing about Kashmir. These viewpoints may be deemed unacceptable by the Indian establishment, but they are viewpoints which are protected speech under the Indian Constitution. The forfeiture notice is an attempt at stifling collective memory and preventing thought in Kashmir,” said the PUCL statement.
“By clamping down on these books, the attempt to stifle the very heart of intellectual life: which is to seek knowledge and form opinion by gathering thought from all, including contrarian, sources,” it added.
The PUCL said that the Jammu and Kashmir government must appreciate that there may be viewpoints they disagree with, but a constitutional democracy is based on the fact that dissenting opinions exist and should be respected.
“What is not apparent from a reading of the Government notification is a reasoning as to the grounds for forfeiture. What the notification has is a bald, bare and sweeping assertion with no reference to how any of the twenty-five books have contributed to ‘radicalisation of youth in J&K include distortion of historical facts, glorification of terrorists, vilification of security forces, religious radicalisation, promotion of alienation, pathway to violence and terrorism etc,’” said the PUCL statement.
“When there is an omnibus forfeiture order of 25 books, without any specific reference to the content of any of the books, prima facie it appears that the exercise of the power of forfeiture is not a justified exercise of power under Section 98 of the BNSS and will not come within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” it added.
The PUCL said that Section 152 of the BNS which is the so called decolonial law, strikingly goes even further than Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC in its criminalisation of speech.
It demanded an immediate withdrawal of the forfeiture notice of 25 books by the Jammu and Kashmir government and also called for the repealing of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Full text of the PUCL statement:
PUCL Response to the banning and forfeiture of 25 books by J&K Government
Aug 12, 2025
A PUCL Response to the banning of books by J&K Government
Withdraw the forfeiture notification on 25 books on Jammu and Kashmir
Repeal Section 152 of the BNS which is the colonial sedition law in a decolonial avatar!
The omnibus forfeiture of 25 books in Kashmir is an arbitrary and brute exercise of power which violates the Constitution.
The PUCL is outraged at the decision by the Jammu and Kashmir Government to forfeit 25 books in an omnibus order under Section 98 of the BNSS, basing its order on the unsubstantiated opinion that all the books are “playing a critical role in misguiding the youth, glorifying terrorism and inciting violence against Indian State”.
When a mass and arbitrary forfeiture of 25 books on Kashmir traversing different genres is ordered, one can only conclude that such a notification is an arbitrary and brute exercise of power by the state uncanalised by the discipline of the Constitution. What the state is seeking to tell the citizens is that any opinion which is not the opinion of the state cannot be tolerated. This is a form of totalitarian thinking which is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy. By the mass forfeiting of books, the Jammu and Kashmir government is utilizing a colonial, British-era law (Section 95 of the colonial, British era, CrPC finds its Bharatiya or so-called decolonial avatar, as Section 98 of the BNSS) which was designed to suppress demands for Indian independence. This law has been used by the British to ban canonical texts like Hind Swaraj by Mahatma Gandhi.
This omnibus and hence arbitrary forfeiture notification states that ‘this literature has contributed to the radicalization of youth in J&K include distortion of historical facts, glorification of terrorists, vilification of security forces, religious radicalization, promotion of alienation, pathway to violence and terrorism etc.’ This wholly unprecedented decision to forfeit 25 books at the same time through a single notification demonstrates the government’s utter contempt for the constitutional right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression.
Disappearing an archive of literature on Kashmir
Among the twenty-five books forfeited are books by Anuradha Bhasin, Sumantra Bose, Tariq Ali, A G Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Ather Zia and a host of others. To reference some of the books banned
Hafsa Kanjwal in her book ‘Colonizing Kashmir: State-building under Indian Occupation’ notes that ‘to work on Kashmir, especially today, is not easy. As I write, Kashmiri academics, journalists, artists, activists, and human rights defenders are being intimidated, harassed, suspended, and detained by the Indian government for documenting and representing India’s long-standing colonial occupation.’ Kanjwal presciently notes that ‘as India continues to find different ways to silence and criminalize the truth tellers, the future of knowledge production on Kashmir remains endangered.’
‘Do you remember Kunan Poshpora?’ is an effort by ‘students and lawyers who work in Kashmir’ to remember the ‘mass rape, in the two villages of at least 31 women by the 4 Rajputana Rifles regiment of the Indian Army on 23 February 1991’and to document how in spite of a ‘long history of inaction, botched investigations, shameless cover-ups and brutal humiliation’, the survivors have continued their struggle for justice. This book is an attempt at bringing much needed attention to the ‘question of sexual violence and impunity in South Asia.’
In the volume ‘Kashmir and the future of South Asia’ edited by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal there is an essay by Alana Hunt about her art project titled ‘cups of nun chai’. ‘Cups of nun chai’, seeks to remember and memorialise one episode from Kashmir’s troubled history when 118 civilians were killed during the anti-government protests in 2010. Hunt documents herself having nun chai with 118 people from around the world when she talks to them about the situation in Kashmir and documents their curious and interested response.
A G Noorani’s book on Kashmir documents the history behind the accession to India. Noorani has as an annexure, a letter by Jayaprakash Narayan from 1964, in which JP writes that it ‘has always seemed to me to be a lie to say that the people of Kashmir had already decided to integrate themselves with India. They might do so but have not done so yet. Apart from the quality of the elections, the future of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never made an electoral issue at any of them.’ JP acidly references the irony of the opposition to what he has written and says that ‘It is remarkable how the freedom-fighters of yesterday begin so easily to imitate the language of the imperialists.’ In a follow up article JP notes that, ‘My recent article on Kashmir has provoked a rather fierce controversy. That is good, because after the emotional catharsis, tempers should cool down, allowing for a more reasoned approach to a question that has plagued the sub-continent for the past 17 years.’ JP’s letters and the response to them stand testament to the value of debate and discussion.
Ather Zia’s book, ‘Resisting Disappearance’, provides an anthropological account of the work of the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP). APDP consisted of ‘accidental activists’, mainly mothers and wives of men who were forcibly disappeared by the state. The books charts the poignant protests where women ‘wore headbands displaying a faceless man’s profile, symbolic of the disappeared person. They wear long, black robes with photographs of the disappeared hanging from their necks, or cradled in their laps, standing in for the disappeared person.’ The demand to the state from the women is to return their loved ones. In 2020 APDP was raided by the NIA, and confidential documents related to identities of victims were seized, prompting fears of reprisal against victims. Today no protests are permitted.
‘Kashmir at the crossroads’ by Sumantra Bose begins with a poem by Tagore titled Proshno (A Query), written during a peak of British repression of Indians agitating through mass civil disobedience, as well as armed struggle by youth groups. The poem poignantly asks:
“My voice is stifled today; my flute has lost its music.
This pitch-dark prison has turned my world into a nightmare.
That is why I ask You in tears, dear God
Those who have poisoned your air, snuffed out your light
Have You truly forgiven them? Have You really given them your
love?”
The books referenced above give a flavour of the realms traversed covering history, memory, poetry and politics. These books represent voices which the mainstream has forgotten be it the 118 mainly young people shot dead by the Indian security forces or the women who suffered rape in Kunan Poshpora. It also represents a vibrant history when women protested against the crime of enforced disappearances. There are voices from India’s past such as JP who sought to have a reasoned discussion on Kashmir. These books represent a vibrant intellectual culture of thinking and writing about Kashmir. These viewpoints may be deemed unacceptable by the Indian establishment, but they are viewpoints which are protected speech under the Indian Constitution. The forfeiture notice is an attempt at stifling collective memory and preventing thought in Kashmir. Remembering the bravery of the mothers of the disappeared through literature is sought to be erased from public memory. By clamping down on these books, the attempt to stifle the very heart of intellectual life: which is to seek knowledge and form opinion by gathering thought from all, including contrarian, sources.
The forfeiture notification is illegal and unconstitutional
The Jammu and Kashmir government must appreciate that there may be viewpoints they disagree with, but a constitutional democracy is based on the fact that dissenting opinions exist and should be respected. As Justice Chandrachud opined in his dissenting opinion in Romila Thapar v Union of India, ‘Individuals who assert causes which may be unpopular to the echelons of power are yet entitled to the freedoms which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Dissent is a symbol of a vibrant democracy.’
What is not apparent from a reading of the Government notification is a reasoning as to the grounds for forfeiture. What the notification has is a bald, bare and sweeping assertion with no reference to how any of the twenty five books have contributed to ‘radicalization of youth in J&K include distortion of historical facts, glorification of terrorists, vilification of security forces, religious radicalization, promotion of alienation, pathway to violence and terrorism etc.’ When there is an omnibus forfeiture order of 25 books, without any specific reference to the content of any of the books, prima facie it appears that the exercise of the power of forfeiture is not a justified exercise of power under Section 98 of the BNSS and will not come within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed in `State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate’ (2010), (which is the case in which the Court upheld the Bombay High Court order striking down the forfeiture of the book, ‘Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India’ by James Laine)
“Undoubtedly, the power to forfeit a newspaper, book or document is a drastic power inasmuch as it not only has a direct impact upon the due exercise of a cherished right of freedom of speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it also clothes a police officer to seize the infringing copies of the book, document or newspaper and to search places where they are reasonably suspected to be found, again impinging upon the right of privacy. Therefore, the provision has to be construed strictly and exercise of power under it has to be in the manner and according to the procedure laid down therein”.
In this case the Court also held that the grounds for forfeiture must be based upon reading of the whole book and ‘the State cannot extract stray sentences of portions of the book and come to a finding that the said book as a whole ought to be forfeited’. The government extracting sentences from the book to makes its case for forfeiture was deemed insufficient within the understanding of the law, by the SC.
The SC struck down the forfeiture of a single book, in which the order u/s 98 of the CrPC was accompanied by numerous paragraphs from the book which the state found objectionable enough to invoke warranting its powers to forfeit the book.
By contrast, the Jammu and Kashmir government have not bothered to even seek to justify how, why and on what basis, each of the 25 books should be forfeited. The Government has thereby exhibited their total contempt for the freedom of speech and expression and also their egregious hubris (arrogance). A bald assertion is deemed sufficient, to remove an entire corpus of literature about Kashmir by reputed publishers including Oxford University Press, Routledge, Zubaan, Stanford University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press, Harper Collins, Cambridge University Press and Penguin India, showing a cavalier disregard for the freedom of speech and expression.
The drastic nature of the censorship being perpetrated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir comes through on a perusal of the notification. The police are empowered to seize all copies of these 25 books after searching all locations. The notification is marked to the Director Archives, Archaeology, and Museum and the Director of Libraries, among others, indicating that these published literature on Kashmir will disappear from publicly accessible facilities. This will undoubtedly be a cultural impoverishment of the public sphere. Even homes are not exempt from this power of search, seizure and forfeiture. A plain reading of the provision indicates the permissibility of this notification being enforced throughout the country, with the J& K police approaching jurisdictional magistrates in other states for warrants to search and seize these 25 books from bookstores around the country! This will have a chilling effect on the development of critical inquiry into the situation in Kashmir.
The notification also fails to appreciate the protection guaranteed to freedom of speech and expression in the constitutional jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in `Shreya Singhal v Union of India’, (2015) distinguished between ‘discussion, ‘advocacy’, and ‘incitement’. The Court held that,
‘Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in. It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, etc’
There is no material to indicate that these 25 books by reputed publishers, most of which have been in circulation for years come within the higher threshold of ‘incitement’ which causes public disorder or affects security of the state. To any reasonable person the forfeited books, like literature at its best, promote discussion and may lead to advocacy. Both ‘discussion’ and ‘advocacy’ come within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech.
Sec. 152 of BNS is the colonial, British-era anti sedition law in decolonial, Bharatiya disguise
These 25 books, the J&K Government contends, need to be forfeited under Section 92 of the BNNS because these books violate Section 152 (acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 197 (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration and harming national unity), Section 294 and Section 295 (obscenity), Section 299 (acts outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to the Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, the BNS, BNSS and BSA which replaced the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act was formulated to make ‘laws from an Indian perspective.’ While ‘the purpose of the old laws was to extend British rule and protect their property’, ‘the purpose of the new laws is to protect the life, property, and all constitutionally guaranteed rights of Indian citizens.’
Section 152 of the BNS under which, inter alia, the 25 books have been forfeited replaces the old sedition law under Section 124-A of the IPC. Section 124-A was a colonial law which unreasonably criminalised speech which the government determined was aimed at attempting to ‘bring the government into hatred or contempt or excited disaffection against the government’. Section 152 of the BNS which is the so called decolonial law, strikingly goes even further than Section 124-A of the IPC in its criminalisation of speech. Section 152 criminalises, ‘exciting secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encouraging feelings of separatist activities or endangering sovereignty, unity or integrity of India’ The even broader category which the BNS criminalises is the ‘encouraging feelings of separatist activity’.
When a law criminalises the ‘encouragement of feelings’, it is permitting the policing of thought. There can be no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes `encouragement’ or creating ‘excitement’ which avoids the subjectivity or bias of the person in power. The BNS is not merely old IPC wine in a new decolonial bottle but rather takes the project of criminalising thought one step further thereby imperiling the constitutionally protected freedom of speech expression and thought.
One of the forfeited books, Arundhati Roy’s `Azaadi’, makes the case for the power of literature as a way of creating a `republic of the imagination’. For Roy, words are important as a way to begin ‘Reimagining the world.’ The Jammu and Kashmir government, like King Canute who sought to stop the tide, is foolishly trying to prevent people from re-imagining the world. In doing so they are going beyond the remit of the Constitution and morphing into an Orwellian thought police state.
Hence the PUCL demands:
That this forfeiture notice of 25 books be immediately withdrawn by the Jammu and Kashmir government.
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita be repealed as it is nothing other than the old sedition law in a new decolonial disguise.
Kavita Srivastava, President
Dr. V. Suresh, General Secretary
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
Have you liked the news article?