In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a nationwide ban on Salman Rushdie’s controversial book The Satanic Verses. The ruling underscores the Court’s consistent approach toward balancing freedom of speech with constitutional limitations under Article 19(2), while also highlighting procedural concerns linked to the earlier Delhi High Court order.
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by petitioners who argued that Rushdie’s book contained blasphemous passages against Prophet Muhammad and derogatory remarks about Hindu deity Lord Ganesh. They contended that the book’s availability in Indian markets and e-commerce platforms like Flipkart was deeply offensive to religious sentiments and posed a threat to public order. The plea specifically invoked Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of morality, decency, and public order.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. The judges, however, refused to entertain the PIL, remarking that the petition essentially challenged the Delhi High Court’s earlier order that had lifted the ban on the book.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
The bench orally observed that there was no longer any “live notification” in force banning the book. Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that by filing this PIL, the petitioners were indirectly attempting to appeal against the Delhi High Court’s judgment. Since the High Court had already disposed of the matter on the grounds that the government could not produce a valid notification from 1988 banning the book, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere.
This ruling reaffirms the judicial principle that PILs cannot be used as a backdoor appeal against earlier High Court judgments, especially when no fresh cause of action exists.
The Delhi High Court’s Role in 2024
To understand the current controversy, it is important to revisit the Delhi High Court’s 2024 ruling. The High Court was dealing with a petition challenging a purported notification from 1988 that had allegedly banned the import of The Satanic Verses into India. However, during the proceedings, government authorities, including the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, failed to produce a copy of the original notification. Since 2019, when the petition was first filed, no such document could be traced.
Consequently, in November 2024, the Delhi High Court concluded that no such ban notification existed. The Court remarked:
“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.”
This effectively lifted any lingering legal doubts over the book’s availability in India.
The Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners in the Supreme Court made the following arguments:
- Blasphemous Content: They asserted that the book contained derogatory references to Prophet Muhammad, which hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims.
- Offensive to Hindu Beliefs: They pointed out that one of the dream sequences in the book included disparaging remarks about Lord Ganesh, which was equally objectionable.
- Public Order Concerns: They argued that the book was initially banned due to its potential to incite violence and disrupt communal harmony, a legitimate ground under Article 19(2).
- Availability in Marketplaces: The petitioners claimed that the book’s availability on platforms like Flipkart and local shops in Mumbai directly resulted from the Delhi High Court’s decision and should be curtailed.
Supreme Court’s Refusal
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court found no merit in the PIL. The absence of a current valid notification meant there was no enforceable ban on the book. The Court was clear that unless the government itself decided to impose restrictions under due process of law, the judiciary could not entertain a plea to reinstate a nonexistent order.
This decision also signals the Court’s reluctance to encourage PILs that indirectly attempt to revive issues already decided by competent judicial authority.
Legal Framework: Article 19 and Blasphemy Concerns
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes limitations based on considerations of public order, morality, and decency.
In this case, while the petitioners argued that The Satanic Verses fell within the ambit of Article 19(2), the courts have been careful to distinguish between genuine threats to public order and mere allegations of offense. The Delhi High Court’s earlier observation and the Supreme Court’s latest stance reflect a preference for tangible evidence over abstract fears.
Historical Context of the Ban
The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, faced widespread criticism from sections of the Muslim community worldwide. The Indian government at the time purportedly banned its import, making India one of the first countries to restrict the book. However, as the Delhi High Court ruling revealed, the official notification justifying this ban could not be produced decades later.
Globally, the book has sparked intense debates on free speech, religious sensitivity, and state censorship. The controversy even led to a fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, forcing him into years of hiding. Against this backdrop, India’s judicial system has now taken a firm position that procedural rigor and constitutional guarantees of free speech cannot be sacrificed without clear legal justification.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Judgment
- Judicial Restraint on PILs: The Court has signaled that PILs should not be misused to re-litigate settled issues.
- Strengthening Free Speech: By refusing to ban the book, the judiciary has reinforced the importance of free expression, even in the face of religious objections.
- Procedural Accountability: The government’s inability to produce the original 1988 notification highlights the necessity of proper record-keeping in matters involving constitutional rights.
- Future Blasphemy Claims: The ruling may discourage frivolous or repetitive litigation invoking blasphemy, unless backed by concrete evidence of threats to public order.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the PIL against Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses marks another milestone in India’s evolving jurisprudence on free speech and religious sensitivity. While acknowledging the deep sentiments attached to religious faiths, the judiciary has once again emphasized that constitutional freedoms cannot be curtailed without clear, lawful, and procedurally valid grounds. This ruling not only strengthens India’s democratic commitment to free expression but also sets a precedent discouraging the misuse of PILs to advance sectarian agendas.
Also Read
Delhi High Court: Arbitral Tribunals Can Order Share Transfers in Joint Ventures
Supreme Court Slams Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa for Frivolous Complaints; Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs
