The Supreme Court of India on Monday (October 27) dismissed a plea filed by law graduate Mohd Faiyyaz Mansuri seeking to quash a criminal case against him over a 2020 Facebook post about the Babri Masjid, ruling that the trial court should decide the case on its merits. The case stems from a post made in Hindi stating, “Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey’s Sophia Mosque.”
The post, made in August 2020, led to a First Information Report (FIR) being registered at Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. Authorities alleged that the statement was provocative and capable of disturbing communal harmony, booking Mansuri under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 295A (outraging religious feelings).
Later, the district magistrate invoked the National Security Act (NSA) against Mansuri, leading to his preventive detention. However, in September 2021, the Allahabad High Court quashed the NSA order, offering him temporary relief while the criminal case continued.
Petitioner cites freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a)
Before the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Mansuri’s counsel argued that the Facebook post represented nothing more than a personal expression of hope and opinion, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression.
The counsel further claimed that Mansuri’s Facebook account was hacked, and the vulgar or inflammatory comments seen beneath the original post were allegedly made by unidentified persons using fake accounts. He also highlighted that while investigations into other accused individuals had been closed, Mansuri alone continued to face prosecution.
Bench declines to interfere at pre-trial stage
Despite the arguments, the apex court refused to intervene, observing that the appropriate forum to examine the facts and intent behind the post was the trial court. When the petitioner’s counsel pressed for relief, Justice Surya Kant cautioned, “Don’t invite any comment from us,” signalling the court’s unwillingness to make any observation that might influence the ongoing proceedings.
Subsequently, the bench allowed Mansuri to withdraw his plea, while making it clear that all his defences and arguments could be presented before the trial court.
Freedom of expression vs. public order
By refusing to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court effectively affirmed that freedom of expression cannot shield statements perceived as capable of inciting communal tension, leaving it to the lower court to assess the post’s context and intent.
Mansuri will now face a full criminal trial in the Lakhimpur Kheri court, which will decide whether his social media post constitutes a protected act of expression or a punishable offence under Indian law.
