Legality of Book Banning
Legality of Book Banning
Legality of Book Banning
A M BHATACHARJEE
153 A
• Promoting enmity between different groups on
• 95. Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search warrants
for the same.
• Where-(a) any newspaper, or book, or
• (b) any document, wherever printed, appears to the State Government to
contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or
section 153A or section 153B or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), the State Government may, by notification,
stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the
newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other
document to be forfeited to Government, and thereupon any police officer may
seize the same wherever found in India and any Magistrate may by warrant
authorise any police officer not below the rank of sub- inspector to enter upon
and search for the same in any premises where any copy of such issue or any
such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be.
Dwinkandita by Taslima Nasrin
• book-banning is as old as book-writing
• Homer's Odyssey was banned in Rome in the
beginning of the First century.
• Kite Runner –Khalid Hussein (Afghanistan)
• Animal Farm by George Orwell
• Such a Long Journey(not banned)
• The Alchemist author was banned(Iran)
• Satanic verses – Salman Rushdie
• two paragraphs in that book,using such abusive
words against the founder of her own religion.
• "promote, or attempt to promote, enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion, or
disharmony, or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious groups and the
publication of such matters is punishable under
Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.
• writer herself is also Muslim by religion
• the writer cannot be held guilty.(NO
INVOLVEMENT OF 2 religious groups)
• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo of 1997.
• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
on 6 August, 1997.
• appellant (Bilal Ahmed Kaloo) never promoted
feelings of enmity between any groups which
are mentioned hence the appellant was not
guilty under the sections 153-A .
• merely informing about the behaviour of the
army officials towards the citizen and not
referring any other community or group.
post-decision hearing
• the person concerned should be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.
whether before or even after the decision.
• Lalai Singh Yadav of 1971
• a post-decision hearing by the authority
making the order is a must
• without giving the party affected any
opportunity of being heard by the State
government, are absolutely incompatible with
our Constitution and also the due process of
law ensconced therein by the Supreme Court.