The Supreme Court refused to stay the investigation against Ashoka University Professor Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad in connection with an FIR registered by the Haryana Police over two of his Facebook posts relating to Operation Sindoor. However, the Court granted him interim bail and directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh took up the plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, where Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the arrested professor, challenging the FIR and subsequent arrest.
‘No Case for Staying Investigation’: SC
The Court observed that although the petition raises serious concerns regarding the professor’s liberty and expression, “having regard to two online posts that have led to the FIR registration, we are satisfied that no case for staying the investigation is made out at this stage.”
The Bench further ordered the constitution of a three-member Special Investigation Team by the Director General of Police, Haryana. Importantly, none of the officers in the SIT should be from Haryana or Delhi. One of the officers must be a woman, the Court specified.
Interim Bail Granted, But With Restrictions
While refusing to quash the FIR or stay the investigation, the Court granted interim bail to Professor Mahmudabad, directing that he be released upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat.
In a significant condition attached to the bail, the Court restrained the professor from making any online posts, articles, or speeches in connection with:
• The two Facebook posts that are under investigation,
• The recent terrorist attack on Indian soil, or
• India’s counter-response to the said attack.
Court Questions Language, Not Intent
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant took note of the tone and content of the professor’s posts, remarking that while the professor appeared to express an anti-war opinion, some parts of the language used could be interpreted as provocative or politically charged.
“While giving an opinion on the effects of war, he moves into political commentary,” Justice Kant noted, adding, “You could have conveyed your views in respectful and simple language without hurting others.”
Senior Advocate Sibal contended that the Facebook post was patriotic in nature, concluding with “Jai Hind,” and that it saluted the bravery of army personnel rather than insulting them. “There is no criminality here. Why was the FIR registered so early in the morning at 6:30 AM?” Sibal asked.
He also pointed out that the professor’s wife is nine months pregnant, and urged the Court to intervene considering the humanitarian aspect.
Centre Opposes Petition, Questions Maintainability
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the State of Haryana, opposed the petition and questioned its maintainability under Article 32, suggesting that the professor should have approached the High Court instead. “There is an equally efficacious remedy available,” he argued.
However, the Bench noted that since the Supreme Court had already entertained the writ petition, it would proceed to issue appropriate directions, particularly in light of the concerns regarding language and liberty.
The matter will now be taken up on Friday for further proceedings.
