Sc grants interim bail to ashoka university professor in ‘operation sindoor’ remark case, flags inflammatory language - the statesman

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Associate Professor and Head of the Political Science Department at Ashoka University, Haryana. He was

arrested in connection with two FIRs filed against him for social media posts commenting on issues related to Operation Sindoor, alleged war-mongering by sections of the media, and

right-wing politics. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while declining to quash the FIRs, directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to

constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours. The SIT must include three senior IPS officers of the Haryana cadre, none of whom shall be natives of the state. One of the

members must be a woman officer, and the team is to be headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector General (IG). Advertisement Ordering Prof Mahmudabad’s release on interim bail, the court

directed him to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sonipat. As conditions for bail, he must surrender his passport, refrain from making public

statements or writing on *Operation Sindoor* or the two contentious social media posts dated May 8, 2025, and abstain from commenting on the Pahalgam terror attack or India’s military

response to it. Advertisement The bench clarified that the same bail bond would apply to both FIRs lodged in Sonipat district. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant expressed strong

reservations about the language and timing of Prof Mahmudabad’s post. While Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the professor, read the post aloud and described it as “patriotic,”

Justice Kant interjected: “Of course, everyone has the right to express…But is this the time to talk in such a communal tone? The country has faced a serious challenge; civilians were

attacked. Why seek cheap popularity at such a moment?” Justice Kant noted that while the post professed support for the Armed Forces, it also invoked politically sensitive issues like mob

lynchings and bulldozer actions, which, the court said, detracted from a moment of national unity. “When the choice of words is deliberately insulting or discomforting to others… He is

clearly an educated man. He could have conveyed the same message in simple, respectful language,” Justice Kant remarked. The bench also asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju,

representing the Haryana government, to specifically identify any derogatory language directed at women officers in the Armed Forces, as had been alleged in the FIRs and by the Haryana State

Women’s Commission. “The overall projection is that he is anti-war, referring to the suffering of families of army personnel and civilians in border areas. But some words can carry double

meanings,” the bench observed. Prof Mahmudabad was arrested on Sunday from his residence in Delhi and remanded to two days of police custody, sparking criticism from political leaders,

academics, and civil rights groups. The two FIRs registered in Sonipat accuse him of offences including endangering India’s sovereignty, promoting communal disharmony, and making disparaging

remarks against women officers in the Indian Armed Forces. The Haryana State Women’s Commission earlier stated that Prof Mahmudabad’s posts were offensive and promoted a divisive narrative.

The professor, a former spokesperson of the Samajwadi Party, has since clarified that his post was misunderstood, asserting that he intended to celebrate the idea of a united and inclusive

India. In his controversial May 8 post, Prof Mahmudabad wrote: “I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureishi, but perhaps they could also equally

loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing, and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women

soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground — otherwise, it’s just hypocrisy.” He concluded with a reflection: “For me, the press

conference was just a fleeting glimpse — an illusion and allusion, perhaps — to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built. As I said, the grassroots reality that common

Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show. But at the same time, the press conference shows that an India, united by its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

Advertisement