The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that expressing the view that the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya should not have been demolished does not amount to being “anti-national”, Bar and Bench reported.

Justice Madhav Jamdar added that citizens are entitled to hold different opinions and quashed externment orders banning two members of the Social Democratic Party of India from entering Mumbai for a period of one year.

The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992, by Hindu extremists because they believed that it stood on the spot on which the deity Ram had been born. The incident had triggered communal riots across the country. On January 22, 2024, the Ram temple was inaugurated at the site in a ceremony led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The court was hearing petitions filed by Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan and Mohammad Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari challenging externment orders issued against them on December 3, 2025, the legal news outlet reported.

The orders issued by the Mumbai Police were based on three first information reports 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 the demolition of Babri Masjid.

The court verbally observed that action cannot be taken selectively against the petitioners “just because they belong to one religion”.

Jamdar highlighted that the state had not initiated externment proceedings against members of the Nationalist Congress Party or the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), despite one of the FIRs relating to a protest involving multiple Opposition parties, Live Law reported.

Specifically referring to the FIR about the Babri Masjid, the court noted that the state had claimed slogans about the matter “will create rift in the society” but had produced “no material” to support the allegation.

The chief public prosecutor argued that the petitioners’ participation in protests could disrupt social harmony and lead to a breach of peace, Bar and Bench reported.

However, the court said that fundamental rights cannot be restricted on the basis of “speculative apprehensions”.

The judge also reiterated that externment is an extraordinary measure that restricts the fundamental right to free movement and must strictly comply with statutory requirements, Bar and Bench reported.

*Edited by Sara Varghese. *

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.