Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 98
Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for
(1) Where—
(a) any newspaper, or book; or
(b) any document, wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 152 or section 196 or section 197 or section 294 or section 295 or section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) , the State Government may, by notification, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other document to be forfeited to Government, and thereupon any police officer may seize the same wherever found in India and any Magistrate may by warrant authorise any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of such issue, or any such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be.
(2) In this section and in section 99,—
(a) “newspaper” and “book” have the same meanings as in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
(b) “document” includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible representation.
(3) No order passed or action taken under this section shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 99.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long colonial-era tradition (originally from the Press Act and later the Code of Criminal Procedure) of letting the government act quickly against printed material seen as dangerous to public order, national unity, religious harmony, or decency — before a full criminal trial can happen. The idea is that once something like a newspaper or pamphlet is in circulation, waiting for a court verdict may be too slow to prevent public harm, so the executive is given an emergency forfeiture and search power, balanced by a route to challenge it under section 99.
How courts read it
Courts interpreting the predecessor provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (sections 95 and 96) held that the government must record real, specific grounds — not vague or mechanical reasons — for believing a publication falls within the named offences, and that courts hearing challenges (now under section 99) can independently examine whether the material actually falls within those offences, rather than simply accepting the government's opinion. Judges have also stressed that forfeiture is an exceptional power that should be used narrowly, keeping free expression in mind, and have set aside orders where the link between the content and the alleged harm (such as threat to public order) was not clearly shown.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The government can seize any book or article it simply dislikes.
Fact: The power only applies when the content falls under specific listed offences (like promoting enmity, obscenity, or threats to sovereignty), and the government must publicly state its grounds — which courts can review. - Myth: Once forfeited, there's no way to fight the government's decision.
Fact: Sub-section (3) specifically preserves a right to challenge the order, but only through the special procedure set out in section 99, not through ordinary lawsuits.