Bombay High Court Overturns District Banning Orders Against SDPI Officials

Court Ruling on SDPI Officials

On July 29, the Bombay High Court annulled the district banning orders issued by the Mumbai police against two officials of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). The court remarked that merely stating that the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished does not constitute anti-national sentiment. Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over a single bench, noted on Tuesday that the police's actions appeared selective and influenced by the religion of the petitioners.

The court revoked the district banning orders against Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Ghulam Rasool Ansari. In December 2025, the Mumbai police had ordered both individuals to stay out of Mumbai for a year. This police action was based on three FIRs related to their participation in protests concerning the Waqf Bill, air pollution from cement warehouses, and the Babri Masjid issue.

Expressing concerns over the reliance on protests linked to the Babri Masjid, Justice Jamdar orally stated that expressing an opinion on the mosque's demolition cannot be deemed anti-national. He questioned how their belief that the Babri Masjid should not have been demolished could be considered anti-national.

The court emphasized that such views cannot be labeled as anti-national, asserting that everyone has the right to their opinion. The bench criticized the police for targeting the two petitioners, noting that activists from other political parties also participated in the same protests.

The court further highlighted that the FIRs only mentioned slogans without indicating any harm to individuals or public property. It also stated that fundamental rights cannot be restricted based on hypothetical fears. The chief prosecutor representing the state, Shishir Hire, alleged that the accused had ties to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and that their actions could disrupt social harmony.

However, the court dismissed the reliance on alleged connections with the PFI, noting that this claim was not part of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioners.