David Devadas’ narrowed petition brings J&K book forfeiture case back before HC bench

Srinagar: Author and journalist David Devadas’ decision to narrow his challenge to the Jammu and Kashmir administration’s order forfeiting 25 books on Kashmir has brought the case back before a three-judge full bench of the High Court.

The government, meanwhile, has defended the order in court, describing the books as “secessionist in nature” and arguing that they could affect public order in the Union Territory.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court is currently hearing multiple petitions against the August 5, 2025, notification issued by the J&K Home Department, which declared 25 books on Kashmir “forfeited”.

The order effectively bans their publication, sale and circulation in the UT and has triggered a wider debate on free speech and censorship.

Devadas, one of the authors whose work is included in the list, has withdrawn his broader challenge to provisions of India’s new criminal laws but continues to contest the legality of the forfeiture order itself, narrowing the legal focus of the case.

Defending the move before the court, the J&K administration has argued that the books contain material that is “secessionist in nature” and could mislead youth and disturb public order, according to submissions reported in court proceedings.

It has also maintained that the publications promote “false narratives” relating to the region’s political history.

The case is being heard by a Full Bench of the High Court, which is examining whether the government’s decision meets constitutional and legal standards. Earlier, the court had consolidated multiple petitions filed by authors, academics and civil rights activists challenging the notification.

The forfeiture order was issued under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and covers 25 books written by prominent authors and scholars including Arundhati Roy, A. G. Noorani, Sumantra Bose, Victoria Schofield, Anuradha Bhasin and David Devadas.

Petitioners have argued that the order amounts to a blanket restriction on published material, without individual assessment of each book. They contend this violates constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

They have also questioned the absence of book-wise reasoning, saying the government has not demonstrated how specific texts pose a threat to public order.

The J&K administration, however, has maintained that the action is necessary to prevent circulation of material that could encourage separatist sentiment and disturb peace and security in the Union Territory.

The High Court has been hearing the matter over several months and has constituted a Full Bench, underlining the constitutional significance of the case.

Legal observers say the outcome could set an important precedent on how far governments can go in restricting academic and historical writing on sensitive political subjects.