NEW DEHLI: The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a young law graduate over a Facebook post which said that the Babri Masjid will be rebuilt, reported Bar & Bench.
According to a report, the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it had seen the Facebook post and found no reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings.
The Court added that the defence raised by the accused petitioner can be considered by the trial court on its own merits. The petition was eventually withdrawn by the petitioner. The Court was hearing a plea filed against an order of the Allahabad High Court that had dismissed the petitioner’s application to quash a summons issued to him in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered by the police in 2020.
The FIR accused the petitioner of making an objectionable post related to the Babri Masjid on Facebook. The petitioner is said to have uploaded the Facebook post on August 5, 2020, which said,
“Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”
The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindutva mobs in 1992 at Ayodhya, amid claims that it was built over a Hindu temple that marked the birthplace of the Hindu deity, Lord Ram.
The incident also led to a long-running dispute between Hindu and Muslim parties. In 2019, the Supreme Court held that the mosque’s destruction was illegal, but found that the Muslim parties had failed to prove uninterrupted possession over the land where the mosque stood.
The Court awarded the disputed land to the child deity, Ram Lalla, on finding that the Hindu parties had proved exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed site, where they have continued worship. The verdict paved the way for the construction of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya.
The Court, at the time, also directed the government to award a different site measuring five acres to the Muslim parties for the construction of a mosque.
The petitioner who made the post on the ‘rebuilding’ of the Babri Masjid contended that this was a mere expression of opinion protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that the post contained no vulgar or inflammatory language.
He argued that certain third-party comments on the post, allegedly made by others, were wrongly attributed to him and became the basis for the criminal case.
He further claimed that the investigation revealed one of the other accounts that posted the allegedly offensive comments was a fabricated profile operated by a third person. Despite this, he alone continued to be prosecuted, his plea said.
He also pointed out that he had already been detained under the National Security Act for over a year based on the same post, and that the Allahabad High Court had subsequently quashed his preventive detention in 2021.
The petitioner’s counsel added that the criminal proceedings were malicious, selective and a misuse of criminal law. It was submitted that the High Court had failed to apply the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and had passed a cryptic order, directing the trial to be expedited instead of examining whether the FIR disclosed any offence.
When the matter was taken up in the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s counsel began by asserting that there was no vulgarity in his post 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 said.
Justice Surya Kant, however, made it clear that the Court did not wish to make any comments on the post itself.
“Please don’t invite any comment from us,” he said.
The counsel urged the bench to look at the post once before deciding the matter. This led to a brief back-and-forth exchange between him and the Court.
“See my post at least,” the petitioner’s lawyer said.
“We have seen your post,” Justice Kant replied.
“My lords have not seen it,” the lawyer said.
“We have seen it. We have read it many times,” Justice Kant maintained.
The judge also cautioned the lawyer against questioning the Court’s assertion.
“My lordships have not seen the post,” the petitioner’s counsel said again.
“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,” Justice Kant retorted.
The counsel then sought to explain that the charges were based on comments made by others and not his own words.
Justice Kant remained unmoved.
Ultimately, the counsel said he would withdraw the petition to avoid any remarks that might prejudice his defence in the pending trial. The Court, accordingly, allowed the withdrawal of the plea.
