A Decade Later: The Echoes of a Facebook Post and the Supreme Court's Clear Stance on Free Speech

It’s funny, isn’t it? How a few words, typed out and shared on a social media platform over a decade ago, can still ripple through the courts. Well, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, recently put an emphatic end to one such long-standing echo, quashing a criminal case against a man simply for sharing a Facebook post. And what was this incendiary message, you ask? A declaration, made way back in 2010, that “Babri Masjid will be rebuilt.”

You could say it was a sigh of relief, perhaps, for Mohammad Khaliq, the individual at the heart of this particular legal saga. The whole affair, honestly, stretched on for an inordinate amount of time. The original post, apparently, wasn't even his; it was something a 'third party' had put out there, and Khaliq merely hit the share button. Yet, a decade later, in 2020, an FIR was lodged against him, citing sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) usually reserved for inciting hatred and public mischief—153A and 505(2), specifically. Promoting enmity between different groups, or statements creating or promoting enmity—quite the serious charges, for what seemed, at its core, a hopeful sentiment, albeit a provocative one for some.

The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, didn't mince words. They looked at the timeline, the nature of the post, and, importantly, the actual intent. And what did they find? A lack of evidence, a glaring absence of any material, you see, that would suggest Khaliq’s shared post was genuinely aimed at promoting animosity. It wasn't an incitement; it was, in truth, an expression of a view, a desire, if you will. The distinction, as the court patiently pointed out, is crucial. Free speech, after all, encompasses a spectrum, and merely articulating a perspective, even one many might disagree with, sits quite differently from actively stirring up hatred.

The court’s reasoning was rather straightforward, yet powerful. For one, the delay itself—a whole ten years between the post and the FIR—raised more than a few eyebrows. Justice Gavai and Mehta underscored that simply holding or expressing a view, however controversial, doesn't automatically cross into the realm of hate speech or criminal intent. The post, they observed, was “merely an expression of a view or desire,” nothing more. No call to arms, no derogatory remarks, just a statement of a potential future outcome from a particular perspective.

So, what does this tell us? Well, a couple of things, really. Firstly, it’s a clear reaffirmation from our highest court about the boundaries of free speech and, importantly, what it means to genuinely promote enmity. Not every opinion, even a strong one, constitutes a criminal offense. And secondly, it serves as a gentle, yet firm, reminder to law enforcement and those who initiate such complaints: justice, sometimes, needs to move a little faster, and the evidence, when it comes to curtailing expression, better be rock-solid. Because, in the end, a shared thought on a social media feed from years ago shouldn't derail a life without compelling cause. And for Mohammad Khaliq, for once, the long wait is finally over.