On August 6, 2026, the Home Department of the Maharashtra Government notified ‘forfeiture’ of 114 publications under S 98 of the BNSS (Power to Declare Certain Publications as Forfeited). The publications are shown as linked to terror organizations (IS/ISIS, ISKP, Hizb–ul-Mujahideen Pir Panjal Regiment, Al Qaeda) proscribed under the First Schedule of the UAPA, and as literature which attract provisions of the BNS (S. 152, 196, 197, 299). The ban includes digital, electronic and online materials and prohibits “the publication, circulation, distribution, sale, exhibition, possession and storage” of such material as they pose a threat to sovereignty, security and public order.
Based on police inputs provided by the Maharashtra ATS, the notification states that such literature “facilitates dissemination of extremist ideology and increases vulnerability of impressionable persons, particularly youth to radicalisation”. Backing the ban, the Maharashtra Chief Minister, Devendra Fadnavis, said, “Through these material, there was an attempt to promote radicalisation. In some cases it talked about how to make bombs and how to stage violence.”
Bans are inherently undemocratic as proscribing literature violates the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution. Arguably, there are reasonable restrictions underlying Art. 19, but it needs to be debated how mere possession or viewership can be criminalized, how reading of such literature can trigger violent incidents, or how circulation of such literature can compromise sovereignty and integrity. Along with violating fundamental freedoms, bans are characterized by ineffectiveness as history has repeatedly shown that dissemination of ideas cannot be controlled or proscribed, especially in our ever-advancing era of technology.
Bans criminalize people’s everyday freedoms. A case in point is the ban on 25 books in Kashmir in August 2025. As PUDR had shown, the specific state action of banning books was “patently unlawful” as it criminalized “the recognition, discussion, documentation, advocacy and analysis of the well documented history, political movement for the right to self-determination, violence and militarization and its effects in Jammu and Kashmir.” Hence, a ban on books simultaneously curtails people’s right to discuss and debate ideas.
Bans enhance state power. A reading of the Maharashtra notification shows that it can allow for lodging of FIRs based on mere possession or viewership. Since the ban links the 114 publications to issue of proscription under the UAPA and to issues of sovereignty, national integration, enmity between communities and outraging of religious sensibilities of citizens under the BNS, targeted individuals can be demonised as “terrorists” even without affiliation to proscribed organisations. Obviously, the ban is aimed at strengthening the culture of intimidation and fear upon a community already under siege. Muslim youth regardless of their orientation can be subjected to raids and harassment based on suspicion.
Bans illustrate the state’s lack of neutrality as they’re typically one-sided. The Maharashtra order proscribes ‘jihadi’ literature as “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State and public order”, but it carefully omits the growing Hindutva tide carried out through propaganda literature against Muslims in the name of religious nationalism. Quite clearly, not all expressions of radical / extremist ideas advocating violence attract forfeiture under S.98, BNSS. The divisive state narrative underlying the Maharashtra ban is aimed at criminalizing one community.
PUDR’s apprehensions gain currency when the present Maharashtra ban is viewed alongside a similar notification issued by the Assam government in December 2025 which banned literature–publications, documents and digitalised materials—linked to Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT), Ansar-Al-Islam/pro-AQIS etc which are proscribed under UAPA. Like the Maharashtra notification, the Assam order states that the purpose is to prevent “vulnerable section of the youth from falling prey to extremist propaganda” as one of the reasons for applying Sec. 98 BNSS. While the ban notification was meant for the entire state, recently the Dibrugarh district administration issued a notification to reinforce the December order. News reports state that the communication of the order was addressed to the Superintendent of Police “with instructions of strict compliance and necessary action” and that the police was directed to “report identified cases and subsequent actions to the DM’s office.” The fact that individual districts administrations are reportedly involving themselves in ensuring the effectiveness of the ban demonstrates how continuous executive overreach are written into bans.
Bans are necessitated by Sec 98 of the BNSS which outlines how harassment and intimidation can be carried out. Once a magazine/ newspaper/book is declared forfeited any policeman can seize it. Under a magisterial warrant any policemen not under the rank of sub-inspector can enter and search any premises even on mere suspicion that such banned materials might be found there. While Sec 98 on its own doesn’t attract punishment, it empowers the police to vilify and intimidate any educated Muslim. Moreover, while the forfeiture provision in itself is not punishable, the aforementioned BNS sections included in 98 BNSS can be used by the police to file FIRs making the very possession of “radical” literature a punishable act. Besides the blanket nature of the ban also means that scholars, researchers, journalists, authors, in fact anyone interested in learning about these publications can be harassed. As proof of state power, bans promote the state’s arbitrariness and lack of accountability.
Till now, while courts have declared that mere possession of literature is not a crime under UAPA, state agencies have continuously attempted to treat otherwise. In the light of the Maharashtra and Assam notifications, it remains to be seen whether the courts will strike down these orders on the inbuilt Constitutional jurisprudence or succumb to divisive state narratives.
PUDR condemns the Maharashtra ban and demands an immediate withdrawal of its notification. PUDR strongly reiterates its opposition to the use of bans as they are contrary to the very idea of legitimate dissent, a fundamental necessity of a democratic polity.
Deepika Tandon, Shahana Bhattacharya
Secretaries, PUDR
