Supreme Court Firmly Rejects Plea to Ban Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses'

In a move that underscores the judiciary's firm stance against frivolous litigation, the Supreme Court of India has emphatically rejected a petition seeking a blanket ban and withdrawal of Salman Rushdie’s highly controversial novel, "The Satanic Verses." The bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S V N Bhatti, minced no words, categorizing the plea as nothing more than "publicity interest litigation" and questioning the petitioner's motivations.

The petition, originally filed by Syed Waseem Rizvi, who later changed his name to Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi, demanded the removal of the 1988 Booker Prize-shortlisted book from circulation.

The petitioner argued that the novel deeply wounded the sentiments of the Muslim community, alleging it promoted terrorism and threatened national unity. However, the apex court found these claims unsubstantiated, with Justice Khanna pointedly asking the petitioner's counsel to provide concrete reasons for the plea, which apparently failed to materialize.

The court's dismissal reinforces the principle that judicial platforms should not be exploited for personal publicity or to reignite settled controversies without genuine legal merit.

"Where is the cause of action?" Justice Khanna reportedly queried, highlighting the lack of a substantial legal basis for the extraordinary request to ban a book that has been in the public domain for decades.

"The Satanic Verses" has been a focal point of global contention since its publication in 1988.

It sparked widespread protests and condemnations, particularly within parts of the Muslim world, leading to a fatwa issued by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie’s death. This historical backdrop makes any new attempt to ban the book a significant event, testing the boundaries of artistic freedom versus religious sentiment and public order.

The petitioner's submission claimed that the book was fundamentally "anti-Islam" and advocated for its complete removal from bookstores and online platforms, asserting that it would help maintain peace and harmony.

Yet, the Supreme Court's swift and categorical rejection signals that such broad assertions, especially concerning literature that has faced its battles in the court of public opinion for over thirty years, require far more than emotional arguments to sway legal precedent.

This judicial development comes amidst renewed global attention on Rushdie, following a brutal attack he endured in New York last year.

While the attack is separate from the Indian legal proceedings, it tragically underscores the real-world dangers and ongoing sensitivities surrounding his work, making the Supreme Court's latest ruling a poignant reaffirmation of judicial independence in matters of literature and law.