Supreme Court refuses relief to man who posted ‘Babri Masjid Will Be Rebuilt’

The Supreme Court yesterday refused relief to a man who allegedly, in a provocative post on Facebook, wrote, "Babri Masjid will one day be rebuilt, just like Turkey's Sophia Mosque".

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi refused relief to one Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri who had filed an SLP against the Allahabad High Court's decision from September 9, 2025, dismissing his plea to quash the chargesheet and summoning order.

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court. The High Court while rejecting the application, had described the offence as "grave in nature" with the "capacity of hurting the religious sentiments and impairing the social fabric of the country".

The single-judge bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot had passed the order on an application filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri under Section 482 CrPC in the case under several Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, including Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 292A (printed or published material containing grossly indecent or scurrilous matter intended for blackmail), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 67 of the IT Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form).

While the application was dismissed, court, in a move to ensure timely justice, had directed the trial court to "make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously". Going a step further than a general direction, court also had provided a specific time frame, stating, "Preferably the trial court shall set for itself a reasonable time frame to conclude the trial say one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order".

The judgment underscored the legislative intent of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., which is to conclude trials in an expeditious manner Court also issued a detailed set of directions to the trial court and law enforcement agencies.

Court noted that the "delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern". To rectify this, court directed the trial court to take "all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law" to secure the presence of witnesses, including issuing summons by registered post alongside the regular process.

The High Court also mandated a system of accountability. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kheri, was directed to file a sworn affidavit before the trial court, detailing the status of the execution of warrants and service of summons. Furthermore, the trial court is obligated to examine if previous High Court judgments aimed at expediting trials have been implemented by the police and home authorities. "The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person," the order stated.

High Court also sought to put an end to dilatory tactics by counsels and parties. It stated that "Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/counsel".

In a major step to prevent the misuse of bail, the judgment had empowered the trial court to "record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court" if an accused person "does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics". To ensure compliance with the order, high court had asked the trial judge to submit a "fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge".

Case Title: MOHD. FAIYYAZ MANSURI vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Hearing Date: October 27, 2025

Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi