The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation on Friday seeking nationwide restrictions on mosques. Specifically, the petitioner demanded a complete ban on constructing mosques named after Mughal emperor Babar. Moreover, the PIL requested prohibition on naming any mosque as Babri Masjid anywhere in India. Furthermore, Chief Justice-led bench heard the matter and rejected the petition without detailed deliberation.
Additionally, this PIL came amid ongoing political debates about religious structures across several states. Indeed, the petitioner argued that Babar was an invader who oppressed Indian communities historically. Consequently, the petition demanded strict action against anyone attempting to build such mosques. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in these demands and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner’s Arguments in Court
The petitioner specifically argued that Babar referred to Hindus as slaves during his rule. Moreover, the PIL cited historical records claiming atrocities committed during Mughal invasions in India. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that naming religious structures after invaders hurts national sentiments deeply. Additionally, the petition sought directions to state governments for preventing such construction activities nationwide.
Indeed, the petitioner emphasized that mosques bearing Babar’s name could create communal tensions unnecessarily. Consequently, he requested the court to issue comprehensive guidelines prohibiting such naming conventions entirely. Meanwhile, the petition also sought action against those promoting construction of Babri-named mosques. Therefore, the PIL demanded constitutional intervention to prevent what petitioner termed divisive religious activities.
Court’s Decision and Legal Position
The Supreme Court bench examined the petition thoroughly before dismissing it on Friday morning. Specifically, the court found the demands legally untenable and beyond judicial intervention scope currently. Moreover, the bench noted that religious construction and naming falls under fundamental rights protections. Furthermore, the court emphasized that citizens enjoy constitutional freedom regarding religious practices and structures.
Additionally, the Supreme Court observed that blanket bans on religious names lack constitutional backing. Indeed, such restrictions would violate freedom of religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26. Consequently, the court rejected the PIL without entertaining arguments for prolonged hearings or deliberations. Meanwhile, legal experts noted that such petitions often lack proper legal foundation and merit. Therefore, the court’s dismissal brings clarity on the legal position regarding religious structure naming.
Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Pre-Poll Freebies….https://www.thebharatpost.co/supreme-court-freebies-tamil-nadu-electricity-case/
Political Context Behind the Petition
This petition emerges amid controversies surrounding TMC’s suspended MLA Humayun Kabir’s mosque construction plans. Specifically, Kabir announced foundation laying for a Babri Masjid in Murshidabad on December 6, 2025. Moreover, symbolic foundation work began on that date, triggering widespread political reactions across states. Furthermore, actual construction reportedly commenced from February 11, escalating political tensions from Bengal to UP.
Additionally, BJP leaders criticized this mosque project as provocative and against national sentiments strongly. Indeed, political leaders across parties debated the appropriateness of naming mosques after medieval rulers. Consequently, this PIL attempted to seek judicial intervention in what became politically charged issue. Meanwhile, various political parties used this controversy for electoral mobilization ahead of assembly elections. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s dismissal prevents further judicial entanglement in politically sensitive religious matters.
Significance of Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that judiciary won’t intervene in religious naming conventions arbitrarily. Specifically, this verdict upholds constitutional protections for religious freedom and expression across all communities. Moreover, the dismissal prevents setting precedents for blanket restrictions on religious structure naming practices. Furthermore, legal experts view this decision as reaffirming secular constitutional principles protecting diverse communities.
