On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to ease the bail conditions of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who is under investigation for controversial social media posts related to Operation Sindoor.

While affirming that there was no restriction on his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, the court made it clear that he must refrain from posting any content related to the ongoing case.

A special bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta declined to modify the interim bail condition imposed on May 21, which bars Mahmudabad from posting or speaking online about the two contentious posts under investigation. The bench clarified that the interim protection from arrest would remain in place until further orders and scheduled the next hearing for July 16.

“The investigation by the SIT shall be strictly limited to the contents of the two FIRs that form the subject matter of these proceedings. The SIT’s report, once filed before the jurisdictional court, must be produced before this Court,” the bench stated.

The court also reiterated its earlier direction prohibiting the professor from making public statements regarding any terrorist attacks on Indian soil or the military's response to such events.

Addressing concerns raised by the Haryana Police about examining the professor’s digital devices, the bench cautioned against expanding the investigation's scope. “Why go left and right? The SIT is investigating two FIRs. What do you need his devices for? Investigate as you see fit, but don’t broaden the inquiry unnecessarily,” the bench advised the state's counsel.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, urged the court to relax the bail conditions, citing the professor's academic background. However, the bench said it would not consider modifying the bail terms at this stage, though it may revisit the issue later.

The court noted that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been constituted in line with its May 21 order. The SIT comprises Mamta Singh (Additional Director General of Police, Crime), Ganga Ram Punia (Superintendent of Police, Karnal), and Vikrant Bhushan (Superintendent of Police, STF, Gurugram).

The bench also directed the Haryana Police to update the court on their response to a notice from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which had taken suo motu cognisance of Mahmudabad’s arrest. The NHRC had observed that the circumstances of the arrest, as reported in the media, indicated a prima facie violation of the professor’s human rights and personal liberty.

Professor Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 after two FIRs were filed in Sonipat district—one on the complaint of Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and another by a village sarpanch. The complaints pertain to alleged posts on Operation Sindoor, which police claim posed a threat to India’s sovereignty and integrity.

The FIRs invoke several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:

• Section 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India),

• Section 353 (statements conducing to public mischief),

• Section 79 (acts insulting the modesty of a woman),

• Section 196(1) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion).

Mahmudabad’s arrest has drawn criticism from several political parties and academics who view it as an attack on academic freedom and free expression.