SC Questions Haryana SIT's Line Of Probe On Ashoka Varsity Prof Over Operation Sindoor

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Haryana SIT’s line of investigation in the case of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, booked over social media posts on “Operation Sindoor”, saying “it has misdirected itself.”

A two-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed the Special Investigation Team, led by a senior officer, to confine its probe to the two FIRs against Mahmudabad, determine whether those posts disclose any offence, and submit its report within four weeks.

“We are asking why the SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,” Justice Kant said.

Clarifying that it did not wish to interfere with the investigation, the court nonetheless questioned the seizure of the professor’s cell phone and other electronic devices. “It is open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs do not disclose any offence and this case can be closed. It can also state that, during investigation, it came across material constituting separate offences, and the law will take its course,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the SIT.

“We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,” the bench added, noting that, since Mahmudabad was cooperating, there was no need to summon him again.

Observing that the investigation should not have taken two days, the court remarked, “There are two social media posts and two FIRs. The question is simple: which line, word, or expression constitutes an offence? This is what the SIT, as an expert body, must determine.”

The bench also relaxed the professor’s bail conditions imposed on May 21, allowing him to write posts and articles and express any opinion except on the sub judice case.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mahmudabad, submitted that, despite the court’s directive to focus on the FIRs’ contents, the SIT conducted a “roving inquiry” and sent the seized gadgets for forensic analysis, an exercise that, according to the SIT’s interim report, will take another two months.

The ASG countered that the investigation was the SIT’s prerogative and the accused could not dictate its terms. The court retorted, “All you had to do was examine the posts to see if the expressions, words, or terminology constitute the offences alleged. You did not need him, a dictionary, or his gadgets. Why were these gadgets seized?”

Justice Kant warned that, if Raju could not justify the seizures, the court would summon the head of the SIT for an explanation.

Raju argued the devices needed examination to determine if there were offences beyond the social media posts.

The two FIRs, one filed on a complaint by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and the other by a village sarpanch, were registered by Rai police in Sonipat district. Mahmudabad faces charges under IPC sections including promoting enmity and endangering national integrity.

Several political parties and academics condemned his arrest. On May 21, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail but refused to stay the investigation.