Supreme Court Declines to Quash Case on Babri Masjid Post

Supreme Court Refuses to Quash Case Over Facebook Post on Babri Masjid

Bench says trial court will decide if post amounts to offence

Case highlights tension between free speech and religious sensitivity

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 28, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a young law graduate who had posted on Facebook in 2020 that the Babri Masjid would one day be rebuilt. The post was made around the time of the foundation-laying ceremony of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a highly sensitive moment in India’s socio-political landscape.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea and concluded that the matter should proceed before the trial court. The Court said it had examined the post and found no reason to interfere at this stage.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, was a law student in 2020 when he made the Facebook post.
His post said that the Babri Masjid would be rebuilt, drawing a parallel with the Hagia Sophia mosque in Turkey, which had been reconverted from a museum into a mosque.
Following the post, an FIR was registered in Uttar Pradesh under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with promoting enmity and hurting religious sentiments.
The petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the summons issued against him, but the High Court dismissed his plea.
He then moved the Supreme Court, which has now refused to quash the case.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The bench made several key observations:

Trial Court is Proper Forum: The Court said that the petitioner’s defences could be raised before the trial court, which would examine the matter in detail.
No Interference at This Stage: The judges noted that they had seen the Facebook post and did not find sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings.
Withdrawal of Petition: The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw his plea, effectively leaving the case to continue in the lower court.
Cautionary Note: Justice Surya Kant reportedly told counsel not to invite further comments from the bench on the content of the post.

Legal Context

This case falls at the intersection of free speech, religious sensitivity, and criminal law in India.

Relevant IPC Sections: The FIR invoked provisions such as Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings).
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech: Courts in India have often had to balance the constitutional right to free speech with restrictions aimed at maintaining public order.
Past Precedents: In similar cases, courts have sometimes quashed proceedings if the speech was clearly within the bounds of free expression. However, in sensitive matters involving religion, courts have often allowed trials to proceed.

Social and Political Implications

Free Speech Concerns: Supporters of the petitioner argue that his post was an expression of opinion and did not incite violence.
Religious Sensitivity: Critics argue that such posts can inflame tensions, especially given the long and contentious history of the Ayodhya dispute.
Impact on Social Media Users: The case highlights how posts on platforms like Facebook can have serious legal consequences in India.
Legal Precedent: The ruling reinforces that courts may be reluctant to quash cases at an early stage when religious sentiments are involved.

Reactions

Legal Experts: Some lawyers have said the Supreme Court’s decision is cautious, ensuring that the trial court examines the facts thoroughly.
Civil Liberties Groups: Free speech advocates have expressed concern, warning that such cases may have a chilling effect on online expression.
Public Debate: On social media, the ruling has sparked discussions about whether expressing hope for the rebuilding of a religious structure should be criminalised.

Broader Significance

The case is significant because it shows how digital expression intersects with law and religion in India. With millions of Indians using social media daily, the ruling serves as a reminder that online speech is subject to the same legal scrutiny as offline speech.

It also reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters involving religious sentiments, especially in the aftermath of the Ayodhya verdict of 2019, which paved the way for the construction of the Ram Temple.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s refusal to quash the criminal case against Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri underscores the sensitive balance between free speech and religious harmony in India. While the petitioner argued that his post was harmless, the Court has left it to the trial court to decide whether it crossed the line into criminality.

As the case proceeds, it will continue to raise important questions about freedom of expression, the role of social media, and the limits of criminal law in a diverse society.