Justice Surya Kant Upholds Case Over ‘Rebuild Babri Masjid’ Facebook Post

Supreme Court Upholds Case Over Facebook Post

The Supreme Court of India has refused to prevent criminal prosecution of a man over a social media post that he made in 2020. The case is that of Mohd Faiyyaz Mansuri who is a graduate of law and was charged with posting an obscene message on Facebook. The case was considered by a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi where it was not seen necessary to interfere with the case going on in the lower court.

It was initiated with an First Information Report (FIR) that was filed with the police in Uttar Pradesh on August 6, 2020. This was after one of the Facebook posts Mansuri supposedly made the previous day. The post was, Babri Masjid will also be rebuilt someday just like the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was also rebuilt. The authorities considered this message to be derogatory and this prompted some grave legal consequences on him.

Mansuri had gone to the Supreme Court with the hope of having the whole criminal case against him quashed. His petition was submitted following the rejection of his comparable petition of Allahabad High Court on September 9, 2025. Instead of accepting his plea, the High Court had instructed the trial court to commence the process immediately and endeavor to complete the trial in a year.

The ruling of the Supreme Court implies that Mansuri will have to undergo trial in the local court in Lakhimpur Kheri. The bench however did opine that the trial court can make its own merits regarding all the defense arguments that have been raised by the petitioner. After the strong position of the court, the lawyer of the petitioner withdrew the special leave petition which was accordingly dismissed by the court.

The Content of the Controversial Post

This legal issue of Mohd Faiyyaz Mansuri started with the phrasing of his Facebook post of August 5, 2020. He made a comparison of the Babri Masjid and the Hagia Sophia in Turkey. His article, which was in Hindi, translated to an anticipation that one day the Babri Masjid would be rebuilt much like the recently rebuilt or restored back to a mosque in Hagia Sophia in Turkey, Sofian Mosque.

As a result of this post, an FIR was registered on multiple grave provisions of the Indian Penal Code. These were Section 153A, which was to promote hostility among various categories of people on religious grounds. Section 505(2) was also used against him to make statements that cause, foster, or are likely to cause enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes, and the sections of obscenity and criminal intimidation.

After the FIR is registered, the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri acted cruelly. The government directed the arrest of Mansuri under the extremely restrictive National Security Act (NSA) that is a preventive detention statute. He spent more than a year in the NSA jail before this particular detention order was quashed by the Allahabad High Court in September 2021 as being unreasonable.

Although the NSA detention was reversed, the criminal case founded on the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet went on. The local trial court made cognizance of the chargesheet and summoned him to appear. This prompted Mansuri to appeal against the summons and the whole case in the High Court before the Supreme Court on grounds that his post was not criminal.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Mansuri was represented by Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman to the Supreme Court where he presented a number of arguments. He argued that his customer did not mention vulgarity, or no inflammatory content in his post. The lawyer claimed that the post was just an opinion and hopes which was privileged under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression ensured by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The counsel attempted to make a difference between the original post by Mansuri and the offensive remarks made by other people in the reply thread. He has indicated that a different person, who was operating under a false profile, had made extremely similar, vulgar, and provocative statements on the comments about the Hindu gods. The attorney claimed that his client was being charged whereas the individual who left the really offensive information was not adequately examined.

Another argument that the petitioner made is that his Facebook account had been hacked and the post had been altered against his permission. Claims were also made that the incitious remark made by the fabricated account of the name of Samreen Bano was really made by an individual known as Ritesh Yadav, and this was a clear bid to frame him. The defense claimed the prosecution was discriminatory and misuse of the law process.

Justice Surya Kant was in no way convinced by these arguments. The bench indicated that it had already looked at the contents of the post. Justice Kant gave a strong admonition when the attorney demanded that his client made no vulgarity in the particular post, he said, “Don’t ask any rough word of us. This comment was an indication that the court was not ready to argue about the post merits.

The Court’s Firm Stance

The Supreme Court led by Justice Surya Kant was adamant to quash the proceedings. The judges stated that they had gone through the post and did not consider any justifiable reason to halt the trial this far. The abrupt response of justice Kant, we have seen it. Don’t tell me we have not seen it,” left no mistaking ourselves that the bench was not convinced of the innocence of the defense description of the post as harmless.

The Supreme Court has implemented a high standard of quashing criminal cases by refusing to intervene, particularly, the ones that deal with speech that is claimed to promote religious enmity. The position of the court shows that it would rather leave such cases to be completely discussed in a trial. Evidence can be given in a trial and arguments can be put to the test therefore, not throwing away the case at the very outset.

The move by the counsel to withdraw the plea by the petitioner was a tactical one. This was done to ensure that the Supreme Court would not make are additional adverse observations on record. These ill comments might have undermined Mansuri during her defense in her case against her in the lower court.