Bombay HC questions punishment based on Muslim identity, quashes externment of two SDPI workers
text_fields
Two SDPI members, who had been ordered by the Mumbai Police to remain outside Mumbai for a year over their participation in protests on several issues, including expressing the view that the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished, have secured relief from the Bombay High Court, which held that such an expression could not be regarded as anti-national, while questioning whether they had been singled out because of their religion and decrying selective punishment.
Hearing the petitions filed by Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari, who challenged the externment orders issued on 3 December 2025, Justice Madhav Jamdar quashed the orders.
The Mumbai Police issued externment orders to them on the basis of FIRs registered against them in connection with protests against the Waqf Amendment Bill, demonstrations over pollution caused by cement godowns in the Chembur-Govandi area, and protests linked to the Babri Masjid issue.
During the hearing, Justice Jamdar made it clear that merely holding the opinion that the Babri Masjid ought not to have been demolished could not be construed as an anti-national act. "According to them, Babri Masjid should not have been demolished. That is their perception. How is it anti-national? Everybody has a right," the Court observed.
The Bench also questioned the apparent selective nature of the police action, noting that workers from several political parties, including the Congress and the Shiv Sena (UBT), had participated in the same demonstrations, yet proceedings had been initiated only against the duo while others faced no similar action, prompting the Court to ask, "Just because they belong to one religion, action is taken?"
While upholding the sanctity of the fundamental rights, which cannot be curtailed in any manner, Justice Jamdar also noted that the FIRs alleged only sloganeering and contained no accusations of damage to public property or injury to any individual, ultimately holding that the externment orders could not be sustained.