The Supreme Court of India strongly questioned the Haryana Special Investigation Team (SIT) for seizing devices belonging to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University in connection with two FIRs over social media posts related to Operation Sindoor.
- “We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself?” Justice Kant questioned.
- “All you had to do was examine the posts—whether the words or expressions amount to offences listed in the FIRs. For that, you do not need him or his devices.”
- “There are just two posts and two FIRs. The task is simple—identify the lines that supposedly constitute an offence,” the bench said.
Bail Condition Relaxed
In a partial relief to Professor Mahmudabad, the Supreme Court relaxed one of his bail conditions, now allowing him to write and publish articles. However, he must refrain from commenting on matters related to the ongoing investigation or issues that are sub judice.
Earlier this year, Mahmudabad was arrested for alleged objectionable social media posts. The Haryana SIT, consisting of ADGP Mamta Singh, SP Karnal Ganga Ram Punia, and SP STF (Gurgaon) Vikrant Bhushan, registered two FIRs against him and seized his digital devices during the probe.
SC Orders Time-Bound Probe
The apex court directed the SIT to limit its investigation strictly to the contents of the two FIRs and complete the probe within four weeks.
The bench also clarified that the SIT is free to declare that the FIRs contain no prosecutable content or, alternatively, file fresh charges if new and credible evidence surfaces—but without overstepping legal bounds.
Background: What is Operation Sindoor?
Mahmudabad’s posts allegedly criticized Operation Sindoor—a controversial law enforcement action—which drew sharp reactions. His arrest sparked academic, legal, and civil society debates about freedom of expression and the role of state surveillance in university spaces.
Legal and Academic Reactions
Several academics and civil rights groups welcomed the court’s remarks, citing concerns over excessive police action against free speech. Legal experts noted that the SC’s intervention reasserts the principle of proportionality in investigations.
What Lies Ahead?
With a four-week deadline, the SIT must now justify the seizure of devices and present findings based strictly on the FIR content. The case remains closely watched by legal scholars, journalists, and human rights advocates across India.