The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing Facebook posts by Ashoka University’s Assistant Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, hauling it of “misdirecting itself” and expanding the scope of investigation beyond the two FIRs registered.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi warned that the SIT must restrict its probe strictly to the content and language of the two Facebook posts concerning the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, and not conduct a “roving inquiry.”
“Why is the SIT, on the face of it, misdirecting itself?” Justice Kant asked, adding, “They (SIT) can say it’s an opinion and no offence is made out. But why take two months for this?”
Rejecting Additional Solicitor General SV Raju’s request for two more months to complete the investigation, the Court gave the SIT four weeks to wrap up the probe. Justice Kant remarked in a quip directed at the ASG Raju: “You don’t need him (Mahmudabad)… you need a dictionary!”
ASG Raju appeared for the Haryana government.
The observation came in light of the SIT’s alleged misreading of the Facebook post which, according to the bench, needed a more nuanced linguistic interpretation, rather than police scrutiny.
The Court clarified that Mahmudabad, who had already joined the probe and whose electronic devices had been examined, need not be summoned again. It also directed that interim protection from arrest would continue, while reaffirming that he remains free to publish social media posts and articles, except on sub judice matters.
“It seems to us that it is not needed to summon the petitioner (Mahmudabad) again to join the investigation,” the Court said in its order. “The petitioner is free to write any online posts or articles except commenting on sub judice matter.”
Two FIRs had been filed against Mahmudabad over his Facebook posts—one by Yogesh Jatheri citing charges under Sections 196, 197, 152, and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the other by Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia, invoking Sections 79, 152, and 353.
The posts had criticised Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, praised Operation Sindoor and Indian armed forces, but also questioned right-wing silence on mob lynching. He had also highlighted the bravery of Col. Sofiya Qureshi, who had led India’s briefing after the cross-border operation.
While the Haryana Police initially arrested Mahmudabad and he was sent to judicial custody, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail on May 21 and replaced the Haryana Police with an independent SIT to ensure an impartial probe.
Appearing for Mahmudabad, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the post was wrongly construed and was “the most patriotic statement.”
Responding to ASG SV Raju’s claims, Sibal retorted, “Unfortunately, my friend (ASG SV Raju) is always on the wrong side. He wants to be on our side, but he is not being allowed. We will persuade him outside the court.”
Sibal also stressed that the SIT’s remit cannot be expanded into a fishing expedition. “It cannot be a roving inquiry,” he said.