The Supreme Court declined to interfere in a case against a law graduate who posted that the Babri Masjid “will be rebuilt.” The Bench said the defence can be raised before the trial court as the plea was withdrawn after brief exchanges.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India recently refused to interfere in a case involving a young law graduate, Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, who had sought to quash criminal proceedings against him over a Facebook post related to the Babri Masjid.
The post, made in 2020, stated,
“Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”
The Court said it found no reason to stop the trial, allowing the case to continue in the lower court.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea filed by the petitioner against an order of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had earlier dismissed Mansuri’s plea seeking to cancel the summons issued to him in connection with the FIR registered by the police in 2020.
The FIR accused him of uploading an objectionable post on Facebook about the Babri Masjid on August 5, 2020.
After reading the Facebook post, the Supreme Court said it saw no reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings.
The Bench observed that the defence raised by the accused petitioner can be considered by the trial court on its own merits. Following this, the petitioner decided to withdraw his plea.
The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, was demolished in 1992 by Hindutva mobs who claimed it was built over a temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram. This demolition sparked a decades-long legal and communal conflict between Hindu and Muslim communities.
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that while the demolition of the mosque was illegal, the Hindu parties had successfully proved exclusive possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed site.
The Court awarded the land to Ram Lalla, paving the way for the construction of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. At the same time, the Court directed the government to give five acres of land to the Muslim parties for building a new mosque elsewhere.
In his plea, Mansuri argued that his Facebook post was merely an expression of opinion protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.
He said his post contained no vulgar or inflammatory language and that he was being wrongly targeted for comments made by other people on his post.
According to him, certain third-party comments were wrongly attributed to him and were made the basis for the criminal case. He also stated that one of the accounts that posted the allegedly offensive comments was a fake profile operated by another person, but despite this, he was the only one facing prosecution.
Mansuri further pointed out that he had already been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for over a year because of the same post.
However, in 2021, the Allahabad High Court quashed his preventive detention, finding no legal justification for keeping him in custody.
His counsel told the Supreme Court that the ongoing proceedings were malicious, selective, and an abuse of criminal law.
He argued that the High Court had ignored the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which guide when criminal proceedings can be quashed, and had instead passed a cryptic order directing the trial to be completed quickly without checking whether the FIR actually disclosed any offence.
When the case came before the Supreme Court, Mansuri’s lawyer began by saying that his client’s post contained no vulgarity and that the objectionable language came from another user.
“My post doesn’t have any vulgarity. The vulgarity is there in some other person’s post,”
he told the Court.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Hands Over Mental Healthcare Act PIL to NHRC for Nationwide Monitoring
Justice Surya Kant, however, made it clear that the Court would not comment on the content of the post.
Justice Kant said,
“Please don’t invite any comment from us,”
The lawyer then requested the Bench to at least look at the post before making any decision. This led to a short exchange between him and the judges.
The lawyer urged,
“See my post at least,”
Justice Kant responded,
“We have seen your post.”
The counsel disagreed, saying,
“My lords have not seen it.”
Justice Kant repeated firmly,
“We have seen it. We have read it many times.”
When the lawyer again said,
“My lordships have not seen the post,”
Justice Kant warned him, saying,
“Don’t say that we have not seen it. How can you say we have not seen it? If you behave like this, you must face the consequences.”
The lawyer then tried to explain that the criminal charges were based on other people’s comments, not on Mansuri’s own words. However, Justice Kant remained firm on his stand and did not interfere in the proceedings.
Finally, the petitioner’s lawyer said he would withdraw the petition to prevent any remarks from the Supreme Court that might prejudice his defence in the ongoing trial. The Court then allowed the withdrawal of the plea.
This decision means that the trial against the law graduate will continue in the lower court, and any defence arguments regarding free speech or wrongful prosecution will be considered there.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere shows that it prefers such issues to be tested and decided during the trial process rather than being stopped at the initial stage.
Case Title:
Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Babri Masjid
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
