In a case mixing faith, free speech, and social media, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash criminal proceedings against a young man accused of posting a message about rebuilding the Babri Masjid. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere, cautioning the petitioner’s lawyer not to “invite any comment” from the court.
Background
The controversy began in August 2020, when an FIR was registered against Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, then a law student, for a Facebook post stating, “Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey’s Sophia Mosque.” The post allegedly triggered offensive comments from another user who, according to the petitioner, used a fake account under the name Samreen Bano and made indecent remarks against Hindu deities.
Police booked Mansuri under serious provisions, including Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 292 (obscenity), 505(2) (statements creating public mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 67 of the IT Act for publishing obscene material online.
Later, the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri detained Mansuri under the National Security Act (NSA) - a preventive detention law meant for threats to public order. However, in September 2021, the Allahabad High Court struck down that detention order, terming it unjustified.
Despite that relief, the trial against Mansuri continued after police filed a chargesheet. His plea before the High Court for quashing the entire case was rejected in September this year, though the court asked for speedy trial proceedings.
Court’s Observations
Appearing before the Supreme Court, Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, representing Mansuri, argued that his client’s account had been hacked, and that the post was not inflammatory in nature. “The petitioner merely expressed a historical comparison; another person made vulgar comments which were never investigated,” Rahman said.
But the bench appeared unconvinced. Justice Surya Kant, after briefly glancing through the content, remarked sharply:
“We have seen the post. Don’t invite any comment from us.”
The tone of the court made it evident that the bench was reluctant to offer any opinion that might influence the ongoing trial. It also did not find this to be a case warranting interference under Article 136 (special leave jurisdiction).
Decision
Following the brief exchange, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn, leaving the petitioner free to raise all his arguments before the trial court. The bench made it clear that it would not interfere at this stage.
The order concluded with a brief but telling line:
“All contentions raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the trial court on their own merits.”
For Mansuri, this means the long legal journey is far from over. The trial court in Uttar Pradesh will now decide whether his social media post - made five years ago -crossed the line between expression and incitement.
Case: Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
SLP (Crl) No.: 16370/2025
Type of Case: Criminal - Social Media Post Controversy
Petitioner’s Argument:
- His Facebook account was hacked.
- The post was not inflammatory; the vulgar comment came from another person.
- No intent to promote enmity or disharmony.
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Order: October 27, 2025
