Supreme Court Limits Investigation into Ashoka University Professor's Social Media Comments

Court's Directive on Investigation Scope

The Supreme Court issued a directive on Wednesday to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Haryana Police, stating that their inquiry into the remarks made by Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an Associate Professor at Ashoka University, regarding Operation Sindoor should focus solely on two specific social media posts. The court questioned the rationale behind the SIT's decision to broaden the investigation, as reported by a legal news outlet.

Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the SIT should refrain from further summoning Mahmudabad, with Justice Kant remarking, “You don’t require him [Mahmudabad], you require a dictionary.”

During the proceedings, advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, informed the court that the SIT had confiscated electronic devices and was interrogating the professor about his international travels over the past decade.

Sibal pointed out that the court had previously instructed the SIT on May 28 to limit its investigation to the allegations outlined in the two first information reports (FIRs) against Mahmudabad.

“Do not attempt to expand the scope,” the court had advised. “The SIT is free to form its opinion but should not deviate from the directive.”

The court also questioned the necessity of seizing Mahmudabad’s digital devices.

On Wednesday, the court acknowledged Mahmudabad's cooperation with the investigation, noting that he had surrendered his devices despite the earlier order.

Furthermore, the court reiterated its May 28 directive, although it stated that it may not be appropriate to comment on the SIT's approach.

The court mandated that the investigation be concluded within four weeks.

Additionally, the bench clarified that the bail conditions imposed on Mahmudabad only prevent him from discussing the ongoing case, allowing him to express views on other subjects freely, as reported by another legal news source.

Mahmudabad, who leads the political science department at Ashoka University, faces two cases related to his comments on media briefings concerning the Indian military's operations against terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, which were initiated following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

One case was initiated based on a complaint from Yogesh Jatheri, the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s youth wing in Haryana, while the second was filed by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Women’s Commission.

Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, and on May 21, the court granted him interim bail but did not halt the investigation. The court instructed the Haryana police chief to establish a Special Investigation Team to interpret the language used by Mahmudabad.

He was also prohibited from posting or publishing content related to the scrutinized social media posts and from commenting on the Pahalgam attack and India's military response.

Charges against him include violations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertain to actions detrimental to communal harmony, making statements likely to incite discord, and actions that threaten national sovereignty, among others.

Statements by Mahmudabad

On May 8, Mahmudabad made a social media post where he pointed out the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who represented the Army during the media briefings about the military operation.

He stated, “Perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing, and others who are victims of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens.”

Mahmudabad emphasized that while the optics of the press briefings by Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh were significant, “optics must translate to reality on the ground; otherwise, it’s just hypocrisy.”

The Haryana women’s panel accused him of attempting to “vilify national military actions.”

Bhatia claimed that Mahmudabad ignored the panel’s summons on May 14 and failed to appear when the commission visited the university on May 15.

In his defense, Mahmudabad asserted that he was exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech to advocate for peace and harmony.

He maintained that his comments had been “completely misunderstood” by the commission, which did not adequately address how his posts contradicted the rights or laws concerning women.