The Supreme Court, on May 21, granted interim bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, who was arrested on May 18 over his social media posts related to 'Operation Sindoor'. The arrest was made based on an FIR filed by Haryana Police.
While granting bail, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh clearly stated that the investigation would not be stayed. The Court instructed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours. The SIT must consist of senior IPS officers who are not from Haryana or Delhi.
Read also: Vikas Singh Re-Elected as SCBA President for 2025-26; SC Reserves Key Posts for Women
“The SIT should holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and properly appreciate the expressions used in the two online posts,” the Court directed.
The SIT must include at least one female officer, be headed by an officer of IG rank, and include two SP rank officers.
As a condition for bail, the Court restrained Professor Mahmudabad from posting or writing anything related to the present case, including any opinion on the recent terrorist attack on Indian soil or India's counter-response.
“The professor must fully cooperate with the investigation and surrender his passport,” the bench directed.
The Court emphasized that this interim bail is granted only to allow further investigation.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, requested the Court to prevent the filing of additional FIRs on the same matter. In response, Justice Kant orally stated:
“Nothing will happen.”
The Court also allowed the State of Haryana to present any new evidence discovered during the ongoing investigation.
Bench's Observations on Petitioner's Comments
At the beginning of the hearing, Advocate Sibal presented the social media posts in question, claiming they reflected patriotic sentiments.
Justice Surya Kant, however, commented on the political undertones in Mahmudabad’s posts, particularly about right-wing commentators. Referring to the timing of the posts, Justice Kant remarked:
“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?”
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Challenging ED’s Powers Under Section 50 & 63 of PMLA
Justice Kant further noted:
“Everybody talks about rights. As if the country for the last 75 years was distributing rights!”
On the language used by the professor, the Court observed:
“This is what we call in the law – dog whistling! He could convey the same feelings in a simple, respectful language without hurting others.”
The judge stressed that the professor, being learned, should choose words that reflect respect and neutrality, especially on sensitive matters.
Sibal argued that the comments lacked criminal intent and that the posts concluded with "Jai Hind". He also informed the Court that Mahmudabad’s wife is expecting childbirth soon.
Justice Kant asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju whether the remarks insulted women army officers. He noted that the actual intent and effect of the comments were subjects of the 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 double meanings,” said Justice Kant.
ASG Raju countered by stating the posts were not as innocent as they were being portrayed.
Professor Mahmudabad was earlier remanded to two-day police custody on May 18. He was later sent to judicial custody by a Sonepat court, which rejected the police's request for seven days of custody.
The charges against him include sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to disturbing communal harmony, endangering national sovereignty, and insulting a woman's modesty through gestures or words.
He has also been summoned by the Haryana State Commission for Women, headed by Renu Bhatia.
Case Details : MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD @ ALI KHAN MAHMUDABAD Versus STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025
