Delhi HC rules that notification banning import of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” doesn’t exist as authorities fail to trace it, dismisses plea challenging it

The bench took note of the fact that none of the respondent authorities were able to produce the notification and that the "alleged author" of the notification had also "displayed his helplessness" by failing to submit a copy of it

An appeal against the alleged customs restriction in 1988 on the import of Indian-British writer Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 5th November. A division bench comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee said that no such notification banning the book exists after the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and other officials were unable to produce the notification since the petition was filed back in 2019. The court also stated that as the notification banning the import of the book does not exist, the petitioner is free to procure the book.

The court highlighted, “In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, we have no other option except to presume that no such notification exists, and therefore, we cannot examine the validity thereof and dispose of the writ petition as infructuous.” Petitioner Sandipan Khan requested that the court issue a writ stating that the CBIC’s 1988 notification (No. 405/12/88-CUS-III), issued on 5th October and distributed to all state governments and Union territories on 6th October 1988, preventing the import of the book, was beyond the powers of the Indian Constitution. He sought authorisation from the publisher, an overseas reseller, or Indian or foreign e-commerce companies to import the famous novel.

However, the CBIC’s issues are not with the notification’s constitutionality but rather with finding it in the first place. The notification, according to Khan’s attorney, was not accessible through any website or authority at all. He argued that it could not be produced or filed with the court by the respondent authorities. He notified the court of the response to his 2017 RTI application, which indicated that the book was prohibited. The lawyer also brought forth a 2022 recording of a verdict issued by a coordinate bench, which concluded that the notification was untraceable and, as a result, could not be produced.

The case was initially heard on 6th May 2019. On 10th May 2022, the court notified the CBIC’s attorney that he was being given a “last and final opportunity to produce the impugned custom notification” following six adjournments without the subject being heard. The latter requested further time on 8th September of that year “to take instructions and produce the relevant notification which is relied upon by the respondent (CBIC) for preventing the petitioner from importing the book in question.”

The court then noted in November 2022 that CBIC’s counsel “states that the notification dated 05.10.1988 is untraceable and, therefore, cannot be produced.” It pronounced, “He seeks a final opportunity to make efforts to trace the said file. The respondent shall also file an affidavit as to the procedure to be adopted, in case statutory notifications are lost or misplaced.” However, the respondents still couldn’t find the notification and requested more time when the matter was heard again on 11th January of the next year.

The court reheard the case on 24th May of this year. This time too, the CBIC was unable to find the notification, as indicated in an affidavit on file. It did not, however, provide the affidavit that the court requested, which would have specified what should be done in the event that statutory notices are forgotten or lost. The court was stern about this oversight. “We are informed by the counsel for the petitioner that it is the stated stand of the respondents, on affidavit, that the said notification is untraceable. To be noted, the coordinate bench, via the aforementioned order, had directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the procedure to be adopted if statutory notifications remain untraceable. One last opportunity is granted for this purpose,” the court conveyed.

The final hearing on the matter took place on 5th November. The bench took note of the fact that none of the respondent authorities were able to produce the notification and that the “alleged author” of the notification had also “displayed his helplessness” by failing to submit a copy of it while the case was still pending. Khan will be able to take any legal action regarding the book, the court added, remarking that it has no choice but to assume that the contested notification does not exist. This implies that Khan can import the book to India and there is no customs restriction on it.

Rajiv Gandhi had banned “The Satanic Verses” in India

“The Satanic Verses” was the fourth novel by Salman Rushdie and it was released in September 1988. Rajiv Gandhi, the late prime minister, led the Indian government at the time. It’s interesting to note that India never explicitly banned the book, rather, they used the Finance Ministry to enforce a Customs Act constraint on book imports. Salman Rushdie was even prohibited from entering India by the Congress government. Eleven years later, in 1999, the Vajpayee government finally abolished the prohibition.

India essentially outlawed the book by prohibiting its import within ten days after it was first published in Britain on 26th September 1988. Congress MPs Syed Shahabuddin and Khurshid Alam Khan (father of former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid) spearheaded the call for the book to be banned. Shahabuddin petitioned for the same, arguing that it posed a threat to public order. The father of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Rafiq Zakaria, was also a leading voice in advocating for the novel to be prohibited.

Rajiv Gandhi did what was expected of him and gave in to pressure from Muslim members of his party. He complied with their demand, igniting a communal fire which only grew intense with time. South Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Sudan all banned the book after India did. The Margaret Thatcher government refused to outlaw it, despite widespread demonstrations and book burnings in Britain. The protests quickly extended to Pakistan and there were even a few similar demonstrations in America.

As the protests against the book spread to new nations, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, waded into the controversy and issued a fatwa on Valentine’s Day in 1989. Iran quickly declared a $6 million bounty on Rushdie’s head. On Friday, 13th August 2022, he was brutally stabbed at least 10 times by a Lebanese Muslim Hadi Matar (25), before a speaking engagement in Chautauqua, New York. He was seriously injured and lost sight in one eye.