The Bombay High Court has observed that expressing the opinion that the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya should not have been demolished cannot be termed “anti-national”. The court made the remarks while setting aside an externment order issued against a member of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), saying citizens have the right to hold different opinions.
Justice Madhav Jamdar quashed the externment order against SDPI functionary Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan, who had been barred from entering Mumbai for one year. The court is still hearing a similar petition filed by another SDPI member, Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari.
Court questions selective action
The externment orders, issued by the Mumbai Police in December 2025, were based on three FIRs registered in 2024 and 2025. The cases related to protests against the Waqf Amendment Bill, air pollution allegedly caused by cement godowns in the Chembur-Govandi area, and demonstrations concerning the Babri Masjid demolition.
During the hearing, Justice Jamdar questioned why only the petitioners had been targeted when members of other political parties had also participated in the same protests.
“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 (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction? Just because they belong to one religion action is taken?” the judge orally observed.
‘Not anti-national to hold this view’
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 cannot 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 on the basis of 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.
Court rejects new allegations
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.
One externment order quashed, second case pending
After examining the material on record, the High Court held that the externment order against Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan was legally unsustainable and quashed it.
The petition filed by Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari remains pending. The state informed the court that another case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is pending against him. The court has sought an affidavit from the state and scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 6.
