In a firm decision, the Supreme Court of India declines to quash a 2020 FIR lodged over a Facebook post, signalling limited scope for free-speech claims in communal-sensitive contexts.

NEW DELHI | October 28, 2025

In a decisive move showing the judicial intolerance for inflammatory social-media speech in communal contexts, the Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to entertain the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against a law-graduate for a Facebook post declaring that the Babri Masjid “too will one day be rebuilt, just as the [Turkish] Sophia Mosque was rebuilt”.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that it had seen the post and concluded there was no reason for the apex court to interfere with the trial court proceedings. The bench permitted the petitioner, Mr Mohd Faiyyaz Mansuri, to withdraw his special‐leave petition, thereby leaving the matter to be dealt with on its merits at the trial level.

Background & Criminal Proceedings

The FIR in question was lodged on August 6, 2020, subsequent to a Facebook post by Mansuri on August 5 2020, in which he stated: “Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sophia Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.” The case was registered under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 292 (obscene acts), 505(2) (statements creating public mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insulting modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act. The Lakhimpur Kheri District Magistrate had even invoked the National Security Act against the petitioner, though that detention order was quashed by the Allahabad High Court in 2021.

When Mansuri approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and related proceedings, the high court refused relief earlier this year, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Arguments & Court’s Response

Mr Mansuri’s counsel argued that the Facebook post was a mere expression of opinion, invoking Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (free speech). He contended that neither the original post nor his involvement bore vulgarity or direct incitement to violence, and further alleged that another individual had made the disparaging remarks on the thread, yet was not prosecuted. The petitioner also claimed that his Facebook account was hacked and the post edited without his consent.

However, the Supreme Court bench was unsympathetic. Justice Kant reportedly told the petitioner’s counsel: “Don’t invite any harsh comment from us,” signalling the court’s view that the post could not be lightly dismissed. The bench emphasised that while defence pleas remain open at trial, the role of the high court or apex court at the quashing stage is limited when prima facie offences are made out.

Legal Significance and Free-Speech Implications

The decision highlights key tensions in Indian jurisprudence between freedom of expression and maintenance of public order, especially when speech touches upon communal or religious fault-lines. While the Constitution protects expression, the IPC and IT Act provide wide offences for speech that “promotes enmity” or “outrages religious feelings.” The bench’s refusal to quash the proceeding signals the judiciary’s caution when encountering social-media speech that may trigger communal discord.

The bench’s view that it had seen the post and would not interfere reflects a judiciary more willing to allow trial scrutiny rather than prematurely closing cases involving sensitive religious issues. The decision thus reinforces the legal doctrine that quashing petitions must meet a high threshold—where no prima facie case is made out and the proceedings are manifestly mala fide or oppressive.

Broader Context: Babri Masjid Dispute and Sensitivities

That the Facebook post referenced the Babri Masjid makes the case especially significant. The original Babri Masjid dispute culminated in the Supreme Court’s 2019 unanimous judgment allocating the site to the Ram Temple and directing alternate land for a mosque. The affair remains deeply emotive and politically charged. In this context, a social-media post suggesting a rebuild of the Babri Masjid touches a fault-line of Indian communal history, thereby elevating the perceived risk of public disorder or provocation.

What Happens Next

With the petition withdrawn, the case returns to the trial court, where the chargesheet has already been taken cognisance of. The trial will determine whether the prosecution can establish the offences alleged, and the defence will be free to advance its arguments regarding consent, account hacking, and free-speech protection. The high court’s earlier direction to expedite trial proceedings will apply.

For Mr Mansuri, the outcome remains uncertain—a conviction could carry significant criminal consequences and impact his law-graduate registration/enrolment, while an acquittal could reinforce free-speech protections in social-media expression.

Implications for Social-Media Expression in India

The case signals a cautionary message for social-media users in India, especially when posts involve communal or religious content: expression which may be perceived as provocative or capable of disturbing public harmony can trigger substantive criminal proceedings, and courts may be unwilling to intervene at early stages.

Legal observers see this as part of a broader trend where the judiciary emphasises the potential effect of speech on public order and inter-community relations rather than purely the literal content of the statement. Commentators caution that this approach requires robust safeguards—so that free speech is not unduly chilled—but also recognise the judicial concern for the unique perils of online speech in a diverse society.

Source: