Supreme Court Declines to Quash Case Against Law Graduate Over Babri Masjid Facebook Post
The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a young law graduate accused of posting on Facebook that the Babri Masjid will be rebuilt [Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.].
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi stated that it had reviewed the Facebook post and found no reason to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. The judges clarified that the petitioner’s defence could be raised before the trial court, which would decide the matter based on its own merits. Following this observation, the petitioner chose to withdraw his plea.
The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2020, accusing the petitioner of making an objectionable post about the Babri Masjid on Facebook. According to the FIR, on August 5, 2020, the petitioner posted, “Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”
The Babri Masjid, located in Ayodhya, was demolished in 1992 by mobs claiming it was built over a Hindu temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram. The incident led to decades of litigation between Hindu and Muslim groups. In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court termed the mosque’s demolition unlawful but held that the Hindu parties had proved continuous possession of the outer courtyard. The Court allotted the disputed land to the deity Ram Lalla and directed that an alternative five-acre plot be given to the Muslim side for constructing a new mosque.
The petitioner argued that his Facebook post was a simple expression of opinion protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and contained no abusive or provocative language. He also claimed that some objectionable comments on the post were made by other users, yet were wrongly attributed to him. The investigation, he said, even revealed that one of the offensive comments came from a fake profile, but despite that, he was the only one prosecuted.
He further submitted that he had already been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for over a year based on the same post, and that the Allahabad High Court had later quashed his preventive detention in 2021. His counsel alleged that the ongoing criminal case was malicious, selective, and an abuse of process. It was also argued that the High Court failed to apply the legal principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which guide when FIRs can be quashed, and instead passed a brief order directing the trial to continue.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s lawyer insisted that his post was not vulgar and that the offensive language came from another user. Justice Surya Kant, however, said the Court did not wish to comment on the content of the post. When the lawyer urged the Bench to review it, Justice Kant responded firmly, “We have seen your post. We have read it many times.” When the counsel repeated his objection, the judge cautioned him not to question the Court’s statement.
Eventually, to avoid any remarks that could affect his ongoing trial, the petitioner’s counsel withdrew the plea.
