Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 16) asked why the Haryana Police Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted to investigate the two FIRs lodged against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his two social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor', was "misdirecting itself."

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the SIT was formed specifically to investigate the two social media posts and asked why it was expanding the scope. The bench raised 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.

Pointing out that the SIT was constituted specifically to understand the true meaning of the social media posts and to ascertain if they constituted any offence, the bench asked why the petitioner's devices were seized.

"We just want to know from SIT...for what purpose they have seized devices? We will call them(officers)," Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing the State.

"We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine contents of the posts," Justice Kant said. ASG submitted that how to conduct the investigation was the prerogative of the investigating officer and that all incriminating aspects had to be examined. Sibal countered, saying that there cannot be a "roving enquiry." He added that the petitioner was summoned four times

The bench took notice of the interim report submitted by the SIT, which acknowledged that the petitioner's electronic devices were seized during the investigation and sent for forensic examination.

Noting that the petitioner has 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 Court further reminded the SIT about its May 28 order and directed it to conclude the investigation within four weeks.

The bench dictated the order as follows :

"Though it may not be expedient or desirable for us to comment on the manner in which SIT has proceeded, we however deem it to remind it the mandate contained in our order dated May 28 and consequently direct the SIT to conclude its investigation with reference to the contents of the two social media posts as early as possible but not later than 4 weeks. Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation and handed over his personal gadgets, it seems to us that it may not be necessary to summon the petitioner again for joining the investigation."

The Court further clarified that the conditions imposed while granting interim bail only restrained the petitioner from commenting on the sub-judice issues and the he was free to write or express opinions on other topics.

On May 21, the Court granted interim bail to Mahmudabad, 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.”

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. "You tell us about that also", Justice Kant said to the 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 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.

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.

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