The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against a young law graduate over a Facebook post stating that the Babri Masjid will be rebuilt.
The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the accused’s defences can be appropriately considered by the trial court on their own merits.
The petitioner, Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, had approached the Apex Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in 2020 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he had made an “objectionable” statement concerning the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed his plea for quashing the summons, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Background of the Babri Masjid Facebook Post Case
According to the FIR, Mansuri had uploaded a post on August 5, 2020, which read:
“Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”
The Babri Masjid, demolished in 1992 by Hindutva mobs in Ayodhya, remains one of India’s most sensitive religious and political issues. In its 2019 Constitution Bench judgment, the Supreme Court had held the demolition of the mosque as illegal but ruled that the Ram Lalla deity’s side had proved exclusive possession of the outer courtyard.
The verdict paved the way for the Ram Mandir construction, while directing the Central Government to allocate a separate five-acre plot to the Muslim community for a new mosque.
Petitioner’s Arguments before the Supreme Court
Mansuri, represented by counsel, contended that his Facebook post was a mere expression of opinion safeguarded under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He argued that the post contained no vulgar or inflammatory language and that third-party comments made by unknown users were being wrongly attributed to him.
He also highlighted that one of the users who posted objectionable replies operated from a fake social media profile, yet he alone was prosecuted.
The petitioner further submitted that he had already been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for over a year based on the same post, but the Allahabad High Court had quashed his preventive detention in 2021.
The defence urged the Supreme Court to quash the proceedings by invoking the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, asserting that the FIR disclosed no cognizable offence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
At the outset, Justice Surya Kant made it clear that the Court did not wish to make any substantive comment on the post itself.
When the petitioner’s counsel urged the Bench to “see the post once,” Justice Kant replied firmly,
“We have seen your post. We have read it many times.”
When the lawyer insisted again, Justice Kant warned,
“Don’t say that we have not seen it. If you behave like this, you must face the consequences.”
The Bench, after perusing the material, observed that no interference was warranted at this stage. The Court held that all defences raised by the petitioner, including attribution of comments and absence of vulgarity, can be examined by the trial court.
Ultimately, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea to avoid remarks that might prejudice his defence during trial. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the withdrawal.
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…