The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has formed a three-judge full bench to examine the legality of the ban imposed by the Union Territory administration on 25 books. The books were banned under the claim that they promote "false narratives" and "secessionism". The bench, which includes the Chief Justice, Justice Rajnesh Oswal, and Justice Shahzad Azeem, is scheduled to hear the matter on Monday.
The decision to form a larger bench was made after the court observed on September 30, 2025, that the issue warranted consideration by a larger bench, especially considering the constitutional questions involved. The petitions challenging the ban were filed separately by journalist David Devadas, CPI(M) leader Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, retired Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak, advocate Shakir Shabir, and Swastik Singh. They argue that the ban infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression and lacks a reasoned justification. The petitions also describe the government's action as a "sweeping and unreasoned forfeiture" of literary work.
The J&K Home Department issued the ban on August 5, 2025, citing "credible intelligence" that the banned books were a "significant driver behind youth participation in violence and terrorism" through the dissemination of false narratives and secessionist literature disguised as historical or political commentary. The order alleged that the material glorified terrorism and incited violence.
The banned books include Azadi by Arundhati Roy, The Kashmir Dispute 1947–2012 by A.G. Noorani, In Search of a Future: The Kashmir Story by David Devadas, A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370 by Anuradha Bhasin, and Contested Lands by Sumantra Bose. Following the ban, police searched bookshops across J&K and seized several of the publications.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the ban was initially filed in the Supreme Court, which directed the petitioner to approach the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court for adjudication. The core argument of the petitioners is that the ban violates Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the constitutional guarantee of free speech. They contend that the government's action lacks a reasoned justification.
