Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking a prohibition on constructing or naming any mosque or religious structure after Mughal emperor Babur or the Babri Masjid, signalling judicial reluctance to reopen questions tied to one of the country’s most contentious legal disputes.A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to entertain the plea on Friday. Faced with the court’s disinclination, counsel for the petitioner withdrew the matter, bringing the proceedings to a close at the admission stage without a detailed hearing on merits.
The petition had asked for a direction restraining authorities from permitting construction of mosques or religious buildings bearing the name of Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, or invoking the title Babri Masjid. Though the precise legal grounds were not examined in court, such pleas are typically framed around public order concerns, historical grievances or assertions that naming conventions may reopen communal tensions.
By refusing to admit the plea, the bench avoided engaging in a fresh adjudication over issues that had effectively been settled in the landmark 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute. In that unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution bench awarded the disputed land in Ayodhya for the construction of a Ram temple, while directing that an alternative five-acre plot be allotted for the construction of a mosque. The court had also held that the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 was a violation of the rule of law.
Legal observers say Friday’s development underscores the Supreme Court’s consistent approach of declining to entertain petitions that seek to reopen settled constitutional questions or introduce broad, preventive restrictions on religious expression without a clear statutory basis. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that naming of institutions or places of worship, in the absence of specific legislation prohibiting it, falls within the domain of executive or community decision-making, subject to ordinary law and order safeguards.
The Ayodhya dispute, which centred on claims over a 16th-century mosque built during Babur’s reign, shaped political and legal discourse for decades. The 2019 judgment sought to draw a line under that chapter, relying on archaeological findings, historical records and legal principles relating to possession and title. The verdict was accepted by major political and religious stakeholders, though it remained a subject of debate in academic and civil society circles.
Since then, courts across the country have been approached with a range of petitions concerning other historical mosques and temples. Parliament’s Places of Worship Act, 1991, mandates that the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, shall be maintained, barring the Ayodhya site which was then under litigation. The statute has been cited frequently in arguments over the maintainability of suits relating to medieval-era structures.
Against this legislative and judicial backdrop, the plea seeking a blanket prohibition on the use of certain historical names faced significant legal hurdles. Constitutional experts note that a general ban on naming religious structures after a historical figure would raise questions under the rights to freedom of religion and expression, as guaranteed by Articles 25 and 19 of the Constitution, unless backed by a clear and narrowly tailored law.
Friday’s brief order also reflects a broader judicial pattern of screening public interest petitions at the threshold stage. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, stressed that its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 cannot be invoked for matters that lack a demonstrable violation of fundamental rights or that are speculative in nature. Several benches have cautioned against filing petitions that risk inflaming sensitivities without advancing a concrete legal remedy.
Political reactions to the dismissal were muted, in contrast to the charged atmosphere that once surrounded litigation over the Babri Masjid. The Ram temple in Ayodhya has moved from foundation-laying to consecration ceremonies attended by top political leaders and religious figures, marking a significant moment in the country’s public life. At the same time, the mosque to be constructed on the alternative plot in Ayodhya is being overseen by a trust formed for that purpose, with plans and fundraising under way.