Saying Babri Masjid should not have been demolished is not ‘anti-national,’ rules Justice Madhav Jamdar of the Bombay High Court
NEW DELHI — The Bombay High Court has quashed the externment order issued by the Mumbai Police against two functionaries of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).
A police externment order bans or expels an individual from a locality or district.
The court observed that expressing the opinion that the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya should not have been demolished cannot be termed “anti-national”. The court said citizens have the right to hold different opinions.
“The petitioners are targeted as several such FIRs (First Information Report) are against all political parties. Did you take any action against the political parties? Then selectively (action) should not be taken. The action was taken just because they belong to one religion,” Justice Madhav Jamdar, who was hearing the petition, said on Wednesday.
The two petitioners, Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari, challenged the police orders banning them from Mumbai for one year from December 3, 2025. The order was issued on the basis of three FIRs that were registered in connection with the protests against the Waqf Bill in 2024 and 2025; air pollution caused by the Chembur-Govandi cement factory in the state capital; and the demolition of Babri Masjid.
Referring to the FIR linked to the Babri Masjid issue, the court said merely expressing the opinion that the mosque should not have been demolished does not amount to anti-national activity.
“According to them, Babri Masjid should not have been demolished, that is their perception. How is it anti-national? That cannot be anti-national. Everybody has got a right,” Justice Jamdar remarked.
The court also noted that the state had failed to produce any material to support its claim that slogans raised during the protest could create communal tension.
Fundamental Rights Can’t be Curtailed
The Maharashtra government argued that the petitioners’ participation in protests could disturb social harmony and lead to law and order problems.
However, the High Court rejected the argument, observing that fundamental rights cannot be restricted based on speculative fears.
“As far as fundamental rights are concerned, no reading between the lines. Fundamental rights are there. How can fundamental rights of citizens be affected like this?” the court said.
Justice Jamdar also reiterated that externment is an extraordinary measure that restricts a person’s fundamental right to move freely and therefore must strictly comply with legal requirements.
New Allegations Rejected
During the hearing, the prosecution referred to the petitioners’ alleged links with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI). The court declined to consider the submission, noting that the allegation did not form part of the original show-cause notice and therefore could not be relied upon.
The court further observed that cases still under investigation cannot, by themselves, form the basis for externment proceedings.
