The Supreme Court has declined to consider a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man over a 2020 Facebook post in which he wrote in Hindi that “Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sophia Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea on Monday. During the hearing, advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, representing the petitioner, Mohd Faiyyaz Mansuri, sought permission to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed.
The bench noted, “After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw this petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.” It further observed that any defences raised by the petitioner would be examined by the trial court on their own merits.
The case dates back to August 2020, when an FIR was filed against Mansuri on August 6, a day after his Facebook post. He was arrested two days later, on August 8, and subsequently charged under the National Security Act (NSA).
In his appeal, Mansuri argued that his Facebook post contained nothing unlawful or provocative, describing it as merely an expression of hope and opinion. The petition stated that despite this, he had been booked through an FIR and even subjected to preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA) — a detention that the Allahabad High Court later quashed in its judgment dated September 7, 2021, Indian Express reported.
The statement, Mansuri contended, was a neutral expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The appeal further maintained that the post had been made in a legitimate exercise of this constitutional right. Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, representing Mansuri, told the Supreme Court bench that the post itself contained no offensive or vulgar content, and that any allegedly objectionable language came from another individual who had commented beneath it.
When Rahman sought relief for his client, Justice Surya Kant remarked that the bench had already read the post, cautioning the counsel, “Don’t invite comments from us,” signalling the court’s unwillingness to engage in a debate over the content.
Mansuri also claimed in his plea that his Facebook account had been hacked and the original post edited without his knowledge or consent. He said that other users, including one identified as Samreen Bano, had posted comments under the modified post.
Mansuri’s appeal also claimed that investigators had established that no individual named “Samreen Bano” actually existed, asserting instead that the account was operated by one Ritesh Yadav, who allegedly changed the username in order to implicate him. Despite this, the petition said, authorities did not initiate any action against Yadav, while Mansuri continued to face prosecution.
The plea further argued that although the investigation concerning other accused persons, including the fake “Bano” account, had been closed with a final report filed, the prosecution against Mansuri alone was still being pursued.
According to Mansuri, he remained in custody until September 2021, when the Allahabad High Court quashed his detention under the National Security Act. He added that, as a law graduate, the pending case had prevented him from completing his enrolment as an advocate.
He later approached the high court again after the Lakhimpur Kheri Additional Chief Magistrate issued a summons against him on July 3, 2025. However, on September 9, the high court dismissed his petition, while directing that the trial proceedings be fast-tracked.
In his Supreme Court appeal, Mansuri contended that the high court’s order was “perverse,” arguing that it failed to engage with the contents of his statement or provide any substantive reasoning. The order, he said, merely made a cursory reference to an alleged offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code — which pertains to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings — rendering the ruling “cryptic and unsustainable.”