India’s ban on the import of author Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses has been overturned by the Delhi High Court due to a remarkable situation – the original notification cannot be found.
The 1988 magic realism novel, which explores the age-old subjects of good and evil and features religious figures including Archangel Gabriel and Prophet Muhammad, ran into controversy with Muslim readers, who dubbed it blasphemous.
The book ended up being banned in various countries, including India, South Africa and Pakistan.
Excerpts from the book along with an interview of Rushdie ran in an Indian magazine in September 1988, which led to Indian politicians Syed Shahabuddin and Khurshid Alam Khan demanding a ban.
On 5 October 1988, the Indian government banned the import of The Satanic Verses via a customs order by the Ministry of Finance.
A fatwa (ruling) was issued against Rushdie and his publishers in February 1989 by the then Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Violent demonstrations followed, and the book’s Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed to death. Rushdie was forced to spend the best part of a decade hiding in London.
It has now come to light that the notification issued by the customs authorities in 1988 banning the import of the book cannot be found, leading to the court to dispose of a petition that asked for the notification to be produced in court.
A writ petition against the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) was filed by petitioner Sandipan Khan in 2019, that challenged the constitutional validity of the notification that banned the import under the Customs Act, 1962.
Mr Khan was seeking permission to import the book directly from the publisher or alternate channels.
In his plea, Mr Khan requested that the court declare to all state governments and federal territories that the ban on the book’s import was ultra víres, or “beyond the powers” of the Indian constitution.
Mr Khan also informed the court that he had filed an application under India’s Right to Information Act in 2017, requesting a copy of the notification and received a response that said the relevant file carrying the notification was untraceable, and therefore could not be produced.
Mr Khan’s attorney also said in court that the notification was not available on any website, and efforts to trace it had not borne any fruits.
The petition was adjourned several times, and the CBIC requested the court several times for more time to locate the notification.
In November 2022, the court said that Mr Khan “seeks a final opportunity to make efforts to trace the said file” and that the respondent needed to file an affidavit on what procedure needed to be adopted if and when statutory notifications are lost or misplaced.
Finally, after several court dates, in an order dated 5 November, the Delhi court disposed of Mr Khan’s petition, stating: “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.”
Based on this order, the court stated that since the notification is now presumed to not exist, Mr Khan is “entitled to take all actions in respect of the said book as available in law”.
