The Supreme Court has firmly restricted the scope of the investigation against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. The Court directed that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the State of Haryana can only probe the two FIRs registered against Mahmudabad over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.
Quoting the Court’s exact direction:
"We direct that investigation of SIT shall be confined to contents of the 2 FIRs subject matter of these proceedings. The investigation report, before it is filed before jurisdictional court, be produced before this court. The interim protection to continue till further orders," said the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta.
Read also: Supreme Court Urges P&H Bar Council To Ensure Transparent Bar Elections In Haryana
This decision came after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, raised concerns that the SIT might expand its probe beyond the two FIRs. The Court emphasized to the Haryana Additional Advocate General that the investigation should only cover the FIRs at hand and nothing more.
Sibal also pointed out that authorities were trying to access Mahmudabad's digital devices. Justice Surya Kant, questioning this move, said:
"Both FIRs are matter of record. What is the need for devices? Don't try to expand the scope. SIT is free to form opinion. Don't go left and right."
Regarding Mahmudabad’s request for relaxation of the conditions imposed during interim bail, Justice Kant explained that those conditions were simply intended as a cooling-off period.
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of 21 High Court Judges in Major Reshuffle
He further clarified:
"He is free to write on anything else. No impediment on his right to speech, etc. We don't want a parallel media trial on this issue."
The Court also asked the Haryana government for its response to the National Human Rights Commission’s notice concerning how the FIRs were registered. "You tell us about that also," the bench instructed the Haryana Additional Advocate General.
Background of the Case
Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 following FIRs filed by the Haryana police over his social media comments and was in custody until May 21, when the Supreme Court granted him interim bail. However, the Court did not stay the investigation and instructed the Haryana DGP to form an SIT with senior IPS officers from outside Haryana and Delhi. This was aimed at ensuring a fair and thorough probe into the phrasing and expressions used in Mahmudabad's posts.
Read also: Supreme Court: No Reduction of 20-Year Sentence for Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act
As part of his interim bail conditions, Mahmudabad was barred from posting or writing anything related to the posts in question or the terrorist attack and India's response. He was also directed to fully cooperate with the probe and surrender his passport.
When Sibal expressed concern that more FIRs could be filed on the same issue, Justice Kant assured that the Haryana government would prevent such actions. The judge, however, was critical of Mahmudabad’s social media comments, describing them as "dog-whistling" and suggesting he should have used "polite, respectful, and neutral language" to avoid hurting sentiments.
Justice Kant highlighted Mahmudabad’s remarks about "right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi" and his criticism of their silence on issues like mob lynching and bulldozing, remarking: "So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!"
The Court also took a strong stance against students and teachers who publicly condemned Mahmudabad’s arrest, with Justice Kant warning: "If they dare to do anything, we will pass an order."
Mahmudabad faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 196 and 152, for making statements likely to cause communal disharmony, acts prejudicial to national harmony, and using gestures that insult a woman’s modesty. The Haryana State Commission for Women, led by Renu Bhatia, has also summoned him.
Case Details : MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD @ ALI KHAN MAHMUDABAD Versus STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025
