High Court Reverses SDPI Member Bans, Rules Babri Demolition Critique is Protected Speech
The Bombay High Court has overturned Mumbai Police externment orders against two SDPI officials. Justice Madhav Jamdar ruled that expressing dissent regarding the Babri Masjid demolition does not constitute an anti-national act.
Judicial Rebuke of Selective Enforcement
On July 29, 2026, the Bombay High Court invalidated externment orders previously issued by the Mumbai Police against two representatives of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). The court questioned the impartiality of the state's actions, noting that the First Information Reports (FIRs) used as a basis for the ban mirrored complaints often filed against various political entities. Justice Madhav Jamdar asked whether the police had taken similar steps against other political groups or if these individuals were targeted based on their religious identity.
Defining Protected Political Expression
The legal challenge, brought by Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari, contested a December 3, 2025, mandate that expelled them from Mumbai for one year. The police cited three specific incidents to justify the removal:
- Protests against the Waqf Bill in 2024 and 2025.
- Demonstrations regarding air pollution from the Chembur-Govandi cement factory.
- Public statements concerning the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
The court clarified that stating the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished is a protected view and not an anti-national sentiment. Justice Jamdar observed that the underlying FIRs involved mere sloganeering without evidence of property damage or physical harm to the public.
Fundamental Liberties and State Allegations
While Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray alleged that the petitioners were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and were threats to social harmony, the petitioners denied these claims. Defense counsel Ibraheem Harbat argued that externment requires a demonstrable likelihood of future criminal offenses, which was absent in this case. The High Court emphasized that such police orders infringe upon fundamental rights to free movement and expression, subsequently directing the State to submit a formal affidavit on the matter.
Source: The Hindu — News
