The Supreme Court of India has declined to intervene in the case of Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, a young law graduate who sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for a 2020 Facebook post referencing the Babri Masjid.

The post in question stated: “Babri Masjid too will one day be rebuilt, just as the Sofian Mosque in Turkey was rebuilt.”

Hearing the matter, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said it found no reason to halt the trial and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue before the lower court.

The case originated from an FIR filed in 2020, alleging that Mansuri had uploaded an “objectionable” Facebook post about the Babri Masjid on August 5 that year. His plea challenging the summons was earlier dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, prompting him to move the Supreme Court.

After reviewing the post, the Supreme Court said it saw “no reason to interfere” and observed that the defences raised by the accused could be presented before the trial court. Following these remarks, Mansuri chose to withdraw his plea.

Background of the Babri Masjid Dispute

The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, was demolished in 1992 by Hindus who stated it had been constructed over a temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram. The demolition triggered widespread communal riots and decades of legal disputes.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that although the demolition was unlawful, the Hindu parties had successfully established exclusive possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed site. The Court granted the land to the deity Ram Lalla, paving the way for the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, while directing that five acres of alternative land be allotted to the Muslim parties for a new mosque.

Mansuri’s Arguments

In his petition, Mansuri argued that his Facebook post was an expression of opinion protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

He contended that the post contained no “vulgar or inflammatory language” and that he was being “wrongly targeted” for comments made by other users on the post. Mansuri claimed that third-party remarks were incorrectly attributed to him and formed the basis of the criminal case. One of the accounts responsible for the allegedly offensive comments, he said, was a fake profile run by someone else.

Mansuri also told the Court that he had already been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for over a year because of the same post. The Allahabad High Court had later quashed his preventive detention in 2021, holding that there was no legal justification for it.

His counsel described the ongoing prosecution as “malicious, selective, and an abuse of criminal law.” The petition argued that the High Court had disregarded the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – a landmark ruling that outlines circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed. Instead, the High Court had passed a “cryptic” order asking for a speedy trial without examining whether the FIR disclosed any offence, the plea said.

Exchange in the Supreme Court

During the hearing, Mansuri’s lawyer maintained that the post contained no vulgar language, asserting that any objectionable content was written by another user.

He told the Bench, “My post doesn’t have any vulgarity. The vulgarity is there in some other person’s post.”

Justice Surya Kant responded that the Court would not make any comment on the post’s content, saying, “Please don’t invite any comment from us.”

The counsel urged the Bench to at least review the post before making a decision, leading to a brief exchange.

“See my post at least,” the lawyer said. “We have seen your post,” Justice Kant replied.

The counsel disagreed, insisting, “My lords have not seen it.”

Justice Kant repeated firmly, “We have seen it. We have read it many times.”

When the lawyer again said, “My lordships have not seen the post,” Justice Kant warned, “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.”

The lawyer then reiterated that the charges were based on comments from other people, not on Mansuri’s own words. Justice Kant, however, maintained the Court’s position and refused to interfere.

Petition Withdrawn

Eventually, Mansuri’s counsel said he would withdraw the petition to avoid any remarks from the Court that might affect his defence during trial. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal, making it clear that the trial would proceed in the lower court.

The Bench also noted that Mansuri could raise all his arguments regarding free speech and alleged wrongful prosecution during the trial.

(Source: LawChakra)

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘Let Trial Decide’ – Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Quash Case Over Facebook Post That Said ‘Babri Masjid Will Be Rebuilt Like Sofian Mosque’ appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras High Court has criticised the Tamil Nadu Police for “mechanically” closing a criminal case over a Facebook post that carried vulgar captions alongside an image of Lord Krishna stealing clothes from gopis. The Court directed the police to resume the investigation and file a final report within three months.

Justice K Murali Shankar, hearing a revision plea in P Paramasivan v. Inspector of Police, observed that depictions of religious figures must be handled with due sensitivity.

“Depicting Hindu Gods in a disrespectful manner, intentionally hurting the sentiments of millions, cannot be justified. Such actions have the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, social disorder, and undermine communal harmony. Given the deep-rooted respect for religious symbols and deities, disrespect can lead to social unrest and hurt a large section of society. Therefore, it is crucial to approach such depictions with sensitivity. The Government must ensure that freedom of expression does not translate into hurting religious feelings,” the August 4 ruling stated.

The post, allegedly uploaded from an account belonging to one Sathish Kumar, included two Tamil comments, one of which claimed that Krishna Jayanti celebrated “a man who stole the clothes of bathing women.”

A complaint was filed by P Paramasivan, who alleged that the post was intended to defame Hindu gods and harm the image of Hindu women, besides potentially creating religious enmity. Police registered a case but later filed a negative final report, classifying it as “undetected” after claiming they could not obtain user details from Facebook.

Meta, which owns Facebook, had replied that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request or letter rogatory was required for such data. In March, the trial court accepted the police’s closure report while giving the complainant liberty to file a private complaint.

Challenging the closure, Paramasivan approached the High Court, which found fault with the police’s limited investigation.

“Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the respondent police handled the case casually, halting the investigation and closing it as ‘undetected’. Given these circumstances, this Court finds it necessary to direct the respondent to continue and complete the investigation within a stipulated period,” the judge said.

The Court noted that the Facebook page in question already contained personal details that could have been verified to trace the user.

“The investigation was not pursued diligently, and the final report appears to have been filed mechanically,” it observed.

Justice Shankar also remarked that the Krishna-gopis episode is considered a symbolic tale with varied interpretations, including that it was a test of the gopis’ devotion beyond worldly attachments.

“This story highlights the importance of spiritual pursuit and detachment,” he noted, adding that he was not analysing the story’s significance but found that “the Facebook post in question has clearly exceeded acceptable limits of free speech.”

Advocate S Saravanan appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate (criminal side) M Aasha represented the State.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Depicting Hindu Gods Disrespectfully Cannot Be Justified”: Madras High Court Slams TN Police For Closing Facebook Post Case On Lord Krishna; Orders Probe appeared first on The Commune.

After receiving severe backlash for a Facebook post eulogising left-wing extremist writer Arundhati Roy, Amar Chitra Katha Studio was forced to clarify that it had no plans to create a book or collaborate in any way with Arundhati Roy.

Amar Chitra Katha (ACK), a revered comics publisher well-known for its religious and historical comics and graphic novels, published a Facebook post about the contentious ultra-left-wing propagandist Arundhati Roy on Thursday, April 27. The Amar Chitra Katha Studio wrote on Facebook about Roy’s life and work.

Amar Chitra Katha Studio’s Facebook post read, “Born in Shillong in 1961, Arundhati Roy is an architect, screenplay writer, and author. Her first novel, The God of Small Things, became a global phenomenon, winning the Booker Prize in 1997. Apart from her work in fiction, she has authored non-fictional books and essays, about various political and social causes. Her work in screenplay writing has also been appreciated, with her first screenplay winning the National Film Award.”

Also, they listed significant works by Arundhati Roy, including “The God of Small Things,” “The Algebra of Infinite Justice,” and “The Ministry of Utmost Happiness.”

It is important to note that Arundhati Roy is known for being a left-wing extremism and an Islamic terror apologist peddling anti-Hindu narratives. Her book, Walking with the Comrades, is an account of the face-off between Maoists and the Indian government. It deliberately supports the Maoists’ receiving weapons training.

In light of this, the Amar Chitra Katha Studio’s Facebook post received severe backlash for praising a left-wing extremist author and was widely shared on social media. As the Facebook post went viral, Amar Chitra Katha Studio was forced to issue a clarification on May 1st, in which it attempted to distance itself from the controversial writer Arundhati Roy.

The clarification read, “Over the last few months we have been showcasing famous artists, musicians, poets and writers (like Amrita Shergil, Anita Desai, Khushwant Singh, Satish Gujral etc.) from India in a series of social media posts. The post about writer Arundhati Roy was just one in this series about Indian writers.”

They went on to say, “We wish to clarify that we have never planned to create a book or collaborate with Arundhati Roy in any way, whatsoever. Furthermore, we do not endorse the political views of any of the people featured in our books, blogs or social media posts. Our mission has always been and will always be to provide Indian children with a route to their roots. We thank our readers for their support and urge them to check out our new titles at a bookstore or on the ACK Comics app.”

https://www.facebook.com/313807031993827/posts/pfbid02iTQNj3Pavr4rCdjoveY3TtXmZkv2MzvUWt9g52mUeLPmitjVeMymybnAXRGoJBXPl/?sfnsn=wiwspwa&mibextid=RUbZ1f

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Following Backlash, Amar Chitra Katha Issues Clarification On Its Post About Arundhati Roy appeared first on The Commune.