The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was arrested for a Facebook post on Operation Sindoor, India’s retaliatory strike against Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack.
In his post, Mahmudabad had denounced war and Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, while also stating that the praise received by Colonel Sofiya Qureshi of the Indian Army—who led India's media briefing—should result in real change on the ground. He further urged right-wing supporters to raise their voices against mob lynching.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh refused to stay the investigation in the two FIRs registered by Haryana Police, but allowed Mahmudabad interim bail.
“We direct the petitioner be released on interim bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sonepat. There shall be only one set of bail bonds for both FIRs,” the Court ordered.
However, the Court restrained Mahmudabad from making further comments on the subject matter of the case. He was also directed to surrender his passport.
No further articles, social media posts, or public speeches related to the issues forming the basis of the FIRs.
No comments on the recent terror attack on Indian soil or India’s counter-response.
The Bench held that while a stay on the investigation was not justified at this stage, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) should probe the matter for a more objective evaluation.
“We direct the DGP, Haryana, to constitute an SIT comprising three IPS officers who do not belong to Haryana or Delhi. The SIT shall be headed by an Inspector General of Police, with one of the members being a woman officer,” the Court said.
The Court expressed concern over the language used by Mahmudabad in his posts, noting that some words could have dual meanings and may warrant investigation.
“The bona fide part can be subject to probe. He may be saying he is anti-war, but some of the language used could mean different things to different readers,” the Bench remarked.
Mahmudabad was arrested by Haryana Police from Delhi on May 18 and remanded to two days of police custody. The arrest stemmed from two separate FIRs concerning his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor—India’s military response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians.
In the post, Mahmudabad had written:
“India has sent a message to Pakistan: If you don’t deal with your terrorism problem, we will!”
He criticized blind war-mongering and stated that civilian casualties were a reason to avoid war. He also commented on what he perceived as performative optics in having women officers like Colonel Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh lead press briefings, cautioning that symbolic gestures without real action may amount to hypocrisy.
The first FIR, filed by complainant Yogesh Jatheri, invoked sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including:
Section 196 (promoting hatred),
Section 197 (statements prejudicial to national integration),
Section 152 (endangering unity and integrity of India),
Section 299 (culpable homicide).
The second FIR, based on a complaint by Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia, included sections related to:
Section 353 (public mischief),
Section 79 (insult to modesty),
Section 152 (repeated).
The Women’s Commission had accused Mahmudabad of making disparaging comments against women officers and promoting communal disharmony. A show-cause notice was also issued. Mahmudabad denied the allegations, stating the Commission had misread and misrepresented his remarks.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, described the post as patriotic and anti-war, emphasizing that it ended with “Jai Hind.”
Justice Kant acknowledged the right to free speech, but questioned the timing and intent of such posts.
“Is this the time to talk about all this? When the country is facing such a crisis, why make such posts that might create division or invite controversy?” Justice Kant asked.
Sibal countered that there was no criminal intent, and Mahmudabad was merely expressing concern over the consequences of war, especially as his wife is nine months pregnant.
Justice Kant, however, was critical of Mahmudabad’s choice of words, stating:
“There’s no shortage of vocabulary. One can express views without causing discomfort or hurting sentiments.”
The Court also asked the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Haryana, to point out the exact remarks considered insulting to women officers.
“If there are truly disparaging remarks against women in uniform, that is serious. But show us the specific comments,” the Bench asked.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy