New Delhi, May 21(UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an Associate Professor at Ashoka University, in a case related to his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor, India’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing Mahmudabad’s plea challenging his arrest and custody.
Although the Court refused to stay the ongoing investigations or the two FIRs filed by Haryana Police, it directed his release on interim bail.
“We direct that the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sonepat. There shall be only one set of bail bonds for both FIRs,” the Bench ordered.
The Court, however, imposed strict restrictions on Mahmudabad during the bail period directing that he must not publish any online articles, posts, or deliver speeches on the issues related to this case.
He is restrained from making any comment on India’s recent security crisis or the counter-terror operations and he is required to surrender his passport.
Significantly, the Court also replaced the Haryana Police with a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct the probe. The SIT will be headed by an Inspector General of Police and must include three IPS officers, none of whom shall be from Haryana or Delhi. One member of the SIT must be a woman officer.
“Having regard to the contents of the two alleged online posts, we are not inclined to stay the investigation at this stage. However, to ensure an impartial probe, we direct the DGP, Haryana to constitute a SIT of officers outside Haryana and Delhi,” the Court stated.
During the hearing, the Bench took serious note of the language used in Mahmudabad’s Facebook post, observing that it could carry dual meanings and potentially be interpreted as insensitive during a national crisis.
“It is unfortunate when free speech is used in a manner that may humiliate or cause discomfort to others. Choice of words matters,” Justice Kant observed.
The Court questioned whether the post sought cheap popularity at a time of national distress, even as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, defended it as a patriotic and anti-war message, concluding with “Jai Hind.”
“Everyone has the right to free speech, but also a duty to use it responsibly. Rights cannot exist in a vacuum devoid of duties,” Justice Kant remarked, characterizing some portions of the post as “dog-whistling.”
Mahmudabad was arrested by Haryana Police on May 18 in Delhi and remanded to two days of police custody. The action stemmed from two FIRs filed over his Facebook remarks on Operation Sindoor, in which he criticized Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, denounced war, and urged right-wing supporters to also speak out against mob lynching and property demolitions in India.
One of the FIRs was based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, and includes charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including, Section 196 (promoting hatred), Section 197 (assertions prejudicial to national integration), Section 152 (endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India), and Section 299 (culpable homicide).
The second FIR followed a complaint by Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia, alleging the post was insulting to women officers in the Armed Forces. Charges include, Section 353 (public mischief), Section 79 (insult to modesty), Section 152 (again).
The Commission had also issued a show-cause notice, accusing Mahmudabad of promoting communal disharmony and disrespecting women officers like Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who led India’s media briefing on Operation Sindoor.
Mahmudabad, in response, stated that the Women’s Commission had misconstrued his remarks, which, in his view, praised the officers but also demanded that the empowerment of women reflect in ground realities and institutional practices.
The Court pressed the Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the State of Haryana, to identify specific content where Mahmudabad allegedly insulted women officers.
“The FIR claims insult to women army officers. Where is the line that crosses the threshold? Show us,” the Bench insisted.
Raju acknowledged that the content needed to be examined more closely and agreed to place relevant material before the Court.
With the SIT now in charge of the probe and Mahmudabad out on interim bail, the matter will continue before the Supreme Court, which will assess whether the charges merit further legal action, or whether Mahmudabad’s statements fall within the ambit of protected free speech.
UNI/SNG GNK