Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 99
Application to High Court to set aside declaration of forfeiture
(1) Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document, in respect of which a declaration of forfeiture has been made under section 98, may, within two months from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of such declaration, apply to the High Court to set aside such declaration on the ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the declaration was made, did not contain any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 98.
(2) Every such application shall, where the High Court consists of three or more Judges, be heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges and where the High Court consists of less than three Judges, such Special Bench shall be composed of all the Judges of that High Court.
(3) On the hearing of any such application with reference to any newspaper, any copy of such newspaper may be given in evidence in aid of the proof of the nature or tendency of the words, signs or visible representations contained in such newspaper, in respect of which the declaration of forfeiture was made.
(4) The High Court shall, if it is not satisfied that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the application has been made, contained any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 98, set aside the declaration of forfeiture.
(5) Where there is a difference of opinion among the Judges forming the Special Bench, the decision shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of those Judges.
Why this exists
Section 98 (like its predecessor, Section 95 of the old CrPC) lets the government forfeit newspapers, books, or documents believed to contain seditious, obscene, or otherwise dangerous material. Because such power can be misused to suppress free speech, the law has long provided a judicial check: the affected person can challenge the forfeiture before a multi-judge bench rather than a single judge, ensuring a more considered and less arbitrary review. This balance between state power to restrict harmful publications and the citizen's right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) has existed in Indian criminal procedure since colonial-era press laws and was carried forward through the CrPC into the BNSS.
How courts read it
Courts have generally read this kind of provision as a safeguard for free speech rather than a mere technical review. In Harnam Das v. State of U.P. (1958), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a similar special-bench mechanism, treating it as an adequate judicial check on executive forfeiture powers. Later, in State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate (2010), concerning the forfeiture of a book on Hindu religious history, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts must independently examine whether the material truly falls within the objectionable categories, and cannot simply defer to the government's opinion. These cases reflect a judicial approach that treats the High Court's review as a real, not rubber-stamp, protection for authors and publishers.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only the author of the book or newspaper can challenge the forfeiture.
Fact: The law allows 'any person having any interest' in the material — which can include publishers, distributors, or other stakeholders, not just the author. - Myth: The High Court's decision on such applications can be made by a single judge like any other petition.
Fact: The law specifically requires a Special Bench of three judges (or all judges if fewer than three), reflecting the seriousness of forfeiture cases involving free expression. - Myth: The court just checks whether the government followed proper paperwork.
Fact: The High Court must independently assess whether the actual content meets the legal definition of objectionable matter under Section 98(1), not merely review procedural compliance.