The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the way Haryana Police is investigating Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media posts about Operation Sindoor. The court said the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had “misdirected itself” and was going beyond what was necessary.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the SIT to focus only on the two FIRs registered against Mahmudabad. “We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,” Justice Kant said. The judges made it clear that the SIT must only look at whether the posts actually amount to a criminal offence and submit a report in four weeks.
The court also raised concerns over the police seizing Mahmudabad’s mobile phones and other electronic devices. “All you had to do was examine the posts, whether the expression, words or terminology constitute any offences alleged in the FIR. For that you do not need him, or a dictionary or his gadgets,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who was representing the SIT. “We want to know for what purposes these gadgets were seized,” Justice Kant asked.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, speaking for Mahmudabad, said the professor had been cooperating with the investigation but the SIT had carried out a “roving inquiry” instead of sticking to the FIRs. He said the SIT even sent the seized gadgets for forensic analysis, despite the court earlier saying that the focus should be only on the contents of the social media posts.
S.V. Raju, however, defended the SIT’s actions. He said, “The investigation is the SIT’s prerogative. The accused can’t dictate terms of the probe.” He also argued that checking the professor’s devices was necessary to see if there was more to the case than just the posts.
But the court was not satisfied with this explanation. Justice Kant warned that if Raju couldn’t justify the seizures, the court would summon the head of the SIT to explain the line of investigation. “We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,” the bench said again.
The court added that since Mahmudabad was cooperating, there was no need to summon him again. It also said that the investigation should not have taken this long. “There are two social media posts and two FIRs. The question is very simple. Which line and which word or expression constitutes an offence. This is what the SIT, being an expert body, has to find out,” the court said.
The Supreme Court also slightly relaxed the professor’s bail conditions. He is now allowed to write posts, articles, and express opinions—just not on the case that is currently under investigation. Earlier, on May 28, the court had barred him from commenting online about the FIRs or the Operation Sindoor incident.
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested by Haryana Police on May 18 based on two complaints—one by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and another by a village sarpanch in Sonipat district. The FIRs accuse him of making statements that could harm the sovereignty and unity of India, promote enmity between religious groups, and insult the modesty of a woman. He has been charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, India’s new criminal law.
