Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who has been booked by Haryana Police over his social media posts about 'Operation Sindoor', today prayed for release of his passport before the Supreme Court.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Mahmudabad and sought the relief, since Mahmudabad was directed to surrender his passport as a bail condition. The bench however adjourned the hearing till November 18.

"In the meantime, let the passport be returned to him. I don't know why the passport is kept...", Sibal urged. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for Haryana) responded to the submission, saying, "if he wants to go abroad, he can give the itinerary". The ASG clarified that the passport was surrendered to authorities as a bail condition but they would not object to his foreign travel. "If you are not going to object, then give the passport back", retorted Sibal.

Indicating that the matter would be listed on a non-miscellaneous day, Justice Kant said to Sibal, "You are not going tomorrow itself".

To recap, on May 21, the Court granted interim bail to Mahmudabad on May 21, while directing the Haryana DGP to constitute a Special Investigation Team to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”

On August 25, the Haryana Police informed the Court that it had filed closure report in one FIR against Mahmudabad and a chargesheet in another FIR lodged over his social media posts. Taking note, the Court quashed the FIR in which closure report was filed and passed an interim order qua the other thereby restraining the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the chargesheet. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Mahmudabad) contested the invocation of Section 152 BNS (stated to be a substitute for old sedition law) by Haryana Police, pointing out that the challenge to constitutionality of the provision was pending before the Court.

Background

Mahmudabad is facing offences under Sections 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 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 examine and report on the Professor's 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. Nonetheless, the judge expressed reservations about Mahmudabad's comments in his social media posts. A stern view was also taken of students and teachers condemning Mahmudabad's arrest.

Later, Mahmudabad's counsels raised an apprehension that the SIT constituted by the State may investigate aspects beyond the subject FIRs. This led the Supreme Court to clarify that the SIT probe shall be limited to the two FIRs lodged against Mahmudabad and cannot be expanded. Authorities' seeking access to Mahmudabad's digital devices was also ruled out.

Although a relaxation of the bail conditions imposed on the Professor was sought, the Court underlined the need for a cooling-off period and asked his counsels to remind on the next date. Notably, it also questioned the Haryana government about its response to National Human Rights Commission taking cognizance of the manner of registration of FIR in Mahmudabad's case.

On July 16, the Court asked why the Haryana Police SIT was "misdirecting itself". It observed that the SIT was formed specifically to investigate the two social media posts and asked why the scope was being expanded. The bench made these comments after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Mahmudabad) submitted that the SIT had seized his devices and was asking about foreign trips for the last ten years. Sibal pointed out that the Court, by its May 28 order, had directed the SIT to confine its probe to the contents of the social media posts.

Noting that Mahmudabad had cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices, the Court directed that he should not be summoned again. "You don't require him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary," Justice Kant said. The bench further directed the SIT to conclude its investigation within four weeks.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Luthra, Advocate Nizam Pasha (for Mahmudabad); ASG SV Raju (for Haryana)

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