'Saying Babri Masjid should not have been demolished is not anti-national', says Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has quashed externment orders issued by the Mumbai Police against two office-bearers of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), holding that the action did not meet the legal requirements under the Maharashtra Police Act. In a judgment delivered on July 28, Justice Madhav Jamdar set aside the orders that had barred Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari from entering Mumbai for one year. The externment orders, issued on December 3, 2025, were based on three FIRs registered in 2024 and 2025 relating to protests over the Waqf Bill, alleged air pollution from cement godowns in Chembur-Govandi, and the Babri Masjid issue.

During the hearing, the court questioned why action had been taken only against the two petitioners when members of other political parties had also participated in the same demonstrations. Justice Jamdar orally observed that the action appeared selective and raised concerns over whether the petitioners had been singled out because they belonged to the Muslim community. "FIR is against all political parties, but these petitioners are singled out. Action can't be taken selectively. Have you taken action against the political workers of the Congress party, against Shiv Sena (UBT)? Just because they belong to one religion action is taken?" the judge remarked. The court also examined the FIRs and noted that they primarily referred to sloganeering and did not allege violence or damage to persons or public property.

The High Court further observed that expressing the opinion that the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished could not be treated as an anti-national act. Justice Jamdar said citizens were entitled to hold and express such views. When the State referred to alleged links between the petitioners and the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), the court noted that these allegations did not form part of the show-cause notice and therefore could not be relied upon. Rejecting the State's argument that the petitioners' conduct could lead to communal disharmony, the court held that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed on the basis of speculative apprehensions. It reiterated that externment is an exceptional measure affecting a citizen's right to free movement and must strictly satisfy statutory conditions. Finding that those requirements had not been met, the court declared the externment orders legally unsustainable and quashed them.