HC sets aside ban on controversial book of James Laine

Mumbai, Apr 26 (UNI) The Bombay High Court today set aside the ban on controversial book 'Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India', containing alleged derogatory remarks about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, written by American author James W Laine.

The order of the court, would be effective from today itself, as a full bench of the High Court rejected State government's request to stay operation of the order, so that the State government could approach the Supreme Court.

A full bench consisting of Justice F I Rebello, Justice V K Tahilramani and Justice Ahay Oak observed that publication of the book neither discloses any offence under section 253 A of the Indian Penal Code nor its contents disturbed public tranquillity or maintenance of harmony between various groups of the society, as claimed by the State in the notification banning the book.

The court noted in its order: ''Notification of the State government proceeds on the footings that the publication of the book was punishable under section 153A of the IPC. But, in a separate criminal case, filed against the author, publisher and printer of the book, the Supreme Court has held that the book does not disclose any offence and hence the notification was required to be struck down.'' The court said 'In fact after the order of the Supreme Court the State government, itself, should have withdrawn the impugned notification.'' Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which empowers the State to order such bans on offending books, requires that the book contain any material, publication of which is punishable under sections 124A, 153A, 153 B, 292, 293 or 295A of the IPC.

Under this section of the CrPC the State government, on January 15, 2004, had issued an order of a ban stating that the book written by James Laine contained offending material, which falls under section 153A of IPC.

It was challenged in the High Court by Republican activist Sanghraj Rupawate, noted filmmaker Anand Patwardhan and social activist Kunda Pramila.

The State had withdrawn this notification and subsequently issued a new notification on December 21, 2006, when the proceedings before the court were complete and order was reserved. The court had allowed the petitioner to challenge the second notification also, by amending the same petition.

UNI