Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today restricted the scope of Special Investigation Team Probe into the case lodged against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.

The probe should be limited to the 2 FIRs lodged against Mahmudabad, the Court said.

"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" a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta said.

The development came as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Mahmudabad) showed apprehension that the SIT constituted by State of Haryana pursuant to the Court's order may investigate aspects beyond the subject FIRs.

Accordingly, the Court categorically told the Haryana Additional Advocate General that the scope of the SIT probe is limited to the 2 FIRs which are subject matter of the present case and can't be expanded.

Notably, Sibal also raised the issue of authorities seeking access to Mahmudabad's digital devices. In this regard, Justice Kant noted that the FIRs were already part of the record. "Both FIRs are matter of record. Where is the question of [his] devices? Don't try to expand the scope. SIT is free to form opinion. Don't go left and right" the judge told the Haryana AAG.

Further, a relaxation of the conditions imposed by the Court while granting Mahmudabad interim bail was sought. "He won't do anything, your lordships may take it from me...please record my statement and remove the conditions. That order may not be continued. These are mature people...teaching in universities. We understand your sentiment, petitioner knows where he has landed", Sibal urged.

However, Justice Kant said that the same were only meant to introduce a cooling-off period and the Court is closely monitoring everything. Asking Sibal to "wait for some time and remind on the next date", the judge clarified that Mahmudabad is free to write articles, etc. on aspects other than the subject matter. "We don't want a parallel media trial on this issue. He is free to write on anything else, just not on the subject matter. No impediment on his right to speech, etc." Justice Kant said.

It is pertinent to mention that the bench also questioned Haryana government about its response to National Human Rights Commission taking cognizance of the manner of registration of FIR in Mahmudabad's case. "You tell us about that also", Justice Kant said to Haryana AAG.

Background

Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 pursuant to an FIR lodged by Haryana police over his social media posts and remained in custody until May 21, when he was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court.

At the same time, the Court refused to stay the investigation and directed the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers, who did not belong to Haryana or Delhi, to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts".

As a condition of interim bail, the top Court restrained Mahmudabad from writing any posts/articles in relation to the social media posts which were subject matter of the case or from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by India. The Court also directed him to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. He was further directed to surrender his passport.

When an apprehension was shown from Mahmudabad's end that further FIRs may be registered on the same issue, Justice Kant orally told Haryana government to ensure that the same did not happen. The judge also expressed reservations about Mahmudabad's comments in his social media posts, saying that they amounted to dog-whistling. He could have used polite, respectful and neutral language, without hurting the sentiments of others, said Justice Kant.

Referring to Mahmudabad's comments about "right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi" and his statement that right-wing commentators must equally express concerns for victims of mob lynching, bulldozing etc., the judge further remarked, "So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!".

A stern view was also taken of students and teachers condemning Mahmudabad's arrest. "If they dare to do anything, we will pass an order", warned Justice Kant.

Mahmudabad is facing offences under Section 196, 152 etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, inter-alia, pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty and words or gestures intended to insult a woman's modesty. He was also summoned by the Haryana State Commission For Women which is headed by Renu Bhatia.

Case Details : MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD @ ALI KHAN MAHMUDABAD Versus STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025