The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh clarified that the interim bail is granted to facilitate further investigation and orally remarked that no new cases would be registered.
Published May 21, 2025 | 12:54 PM ⚊ Updated May 21, 2025 | 12:54 PM
The Supreme Court of India. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was arrested by the Haryana Police over his social media posts about Operation Sindoor. However, the court refused to stay the investigation into the social media posts.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 21 May, granted interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was arrested by the Haryana Police over his social media posts about Operation Sindoor. He was arrested on 18 May and has been in custody ever since.
However, the court refused to stay the investigation into the social media posts. It directed the Haryana Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours, comprising senior IPS officers who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to investigate and understand the true meaning of the posts. It said one officer of the SIT should be a woman.
The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh clarified that the interim bail is granted to facilitate further investigation and orally remarked that no new cases would be registered.
Professor Mahmudabad, a historian and political scientist, and Head of the Political Science Department at Ashoka University, was arrested from his residence in New Delhi by Haryana Police and taken to Sonipat.
He has found widespread support online for his posts and demands for his immediate release, by fellow faculty members, civil society members, and political activists who allege that the ‘frivolous’ charges against him represent a broader assault on dissent and freedom of expression under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)-led Union government and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled state governments.
The arrest stems from a series of social media posts by Professor Mahmudabad on 8 May 2025, following India’s military operation ‘Operation Sindoor’, launched on 7 May in response to the 22 April terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 tourists.
In the posts, Mahmudabad reflected on the symbolism of the press briefing, which was led by Colonel Sofia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, both women officers, alongside Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
In another post titled The blind bloodlust for war!, he critiqued the subsequent militarism and jingoism rampant on TV media and social media.
On 12 May, the Haryana State Commission for Women issued a notice to Mahmudabad, alleging that the remarks “disparaged women officers”, “promoted communal disharmony”, and “vilified national military actions”. He was summoned to appear on 15 May but did not attend, citing a lack of jurisdiction and misrepresentation of his comments.
He was arrested on 18 May, based on two FIRs filed in Sonipat under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), invoking Section 152 (endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups), Section 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman), and Section 353 (public mischief). The FIRs were registered based on two complaints:
One by Yogesh Jatheri, BJP Yuva Morcha leader and village sarpanch, accusing Mahmudabad of inciting communal sentiments and endangering India’s sovereignty. Another by Renu Bhatia, Chairperson of the Haryana Women’s Commission, alleging that his remarks insulted women’s modesty and incited public mischief.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, invited the bench’s attention to his comments posted on his Facebook and Instagram profiles. He read out the comments to the bench. “This is a highly patriotic statement,” Sibal said, reported LiveLaw.
Referring to Mahmudabad’s comments about “right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Qureshi” and his statement that right-wing commentators must equally express concerns for victims of mob lynching, bulldozing, etc., Justice Kant said, “So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!”
“Everybody has a right to express free speech. But is it the time to talk of this much communal? The country has faced a big challenge. Monsters came all the way and attacked our innocents. We were staying united. But at this juncture, why gain cheap popularity on this occasion?” Justice Kant said. Sibal, agreed that Mahmudabad’s comments could have waited till 10 May. However, Sibal asked what the criminal was in his comments.
“This is what we call in the law – dog whistling! Some of the opinions are not offensive to the nation as such. But while giving an opinion, if you….” Justice Kant said.
“When the choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons, the learned professor cannot have a lack of dictionary words…he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others. Have some respect for the sentiments of others. Use a simple and neutral kind of language, respecting others,” Justice Kant said.
Sibal said that the comments had no “criminal intent”. He highlighted that the petitioner said that the press briefing of Operation Sindoor showed that the logic on which Pakistan was built has failed, and that the post ended with “Jai Hind.”
Justice Kant asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju if the comments had the effect of insulting women army officers and said that the bona fides of the comment was a subject matter of investigation.
“The entire projection is that he is anti-war, saying families of army people, civilians in border areas, etc, suffer. But some words have a double meaning also,” he said. ASG Raju said that the post was not as innocent as projected by Sibal.
