In a pivotal decision, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to overturn the 1988 ban on Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel, The Satanic Verses. The ruling, delivered on November 5, 2023, centers around the failure of the petitioner, Sandipan Khan, to locate the original government notification that imposed the ban.
Key Ruling Points
The petition, filed in 2019, challenged the ban imposed by the Rajiv Gandhi government. However, the court observed that the petition had become infructuous because Sandipan Khan was unable to access the official notification that legally enforced the ban. Despite multiple attempts, neither the petitioner nor the relevant authorities could provide a copy of the 1988 notification. The bench, led by Justice Rekha Palli, noted that even the official author of the notification indicated an inability to locate it.
Given the absence of the notification, the court concluded that it could not assume the ban was valid and dismissed the petition as moot. The bench, which also included Justice Saurabh Banerjee, effectively ruled that there was no existing legal basis to challenge, as the notification itself could not be substantiated.
Background of the Ban
The 1988 ban on The Satanic Verses was imposed in response to protests from Muslim communities who deemed the book blasphemous. The petition had not only sought the removal of the ban but also requested the Ministry of Home Affairs to lift restrictions on the importation of the book. The petitioner’s goal was to enable legal access to the novel via publishers or international e-commerce platforms.
While the Delhi High Court’s ruling does not explicitly endorse the original ban, it highlights the legal challenges involved in accessing official records and government documentation. The decision raises important questions regarding freedom of expression, government censorship, and the future of literary works affected by bans.
Implications of the Court’s Ruling
The decision to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds may reignite discussions around the freedom of speech and literary censorship in India. With no official record to validate the 1988 ban, the ruling adds an important layer to the debate over the impact of government restrictions on artistic expression and cultural dialogue.
While the court did not explicitly reverse or validate the ban, the ruling effectively rendered the petition moot. The future of the ban on The Satanic Verses remains uncertain, but this case highlights ongoing concerns over government authority and transparency in imposing literary restrictions.
