Supreme Court rebukes Haryana SIT for overreach in probe against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, reasserts narrow scope of investigation

On July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the conduct of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Haryana Police to investigate two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against Ashoka University Assistant Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, stemming from his Facebook posts related to Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam terror attack. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned why the SIT was expanding the scope of its inquiry far beyond the limited mandate granted by the Court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Professor Mahmudabad, informed the Court that despite its clear directions issued on May 28, the SIT had not only seized his client’s personal electronic devices but had also begun investigating matters wholly unrelated to the social media posts—such as his foreign travel history for the past ten years.

Taking note of these submissions, the Court observed that the SIT appeared to be “misdirecting itself,” and reiterated that its purpose was strictly confined to examining the language and content of the two social media posts in question, and to determine whether the phrasing in those posts constituted any cognizable offence under law.

“We just want to know from SIT…for what purpose they have seized devices. We will call them (officers),” Justice Surya Kant pointedly asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the State of Haryana, as reported in LiveLaw.

When the ASG argued that the manner of conducting an investigation is within the prerogative of the investigating agency, Sibal countered that the SIT’s approach amounted to a prohibited “roving inquiry.” He also submitted that Mahmudabad had already been summoned four times, had fully cooperated with the probe, and had surrendered all personal gadgets.

The Court was unequivocal in its response, stating that the SIT must conclude its probe within four weeks, and that no further summons were to be issued to Mahmudabad, given that he had complied with all earlier directions. The Bench stated that “Though it may not be expedient or desirable for us to comment on the manner in which SIT has proceeded, we however deem it to remind it the mandate contained in our order dated May 28 and consequently direct the SIT to conclude its investigation with reference to the contents of the two social media posts as early as possible but not later than 4 weeks. Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation and handed over his personal gadgets, it seems to us that it may not be necessary to summon the petitioner again for joining the investigation.”

“You don’t need him, you need a dictionary,” Justice Kant remarked, as per LiveLaw, referring to the fact that the SIT appeared to be misunderstanding or over-interpreting the semantics of Mahmudabad’s posts, which included both a condemnation of terrorism and criticism of right-wing warmongering.

Background of the case

Professor Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, 2025, by the Haryana Police in connection with two FIRs that accused him of posting comments on Facebook that were allegedly provocative and anti-national. The posts were in the context of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and India’s retaliatory military action under Operation Sindoor.

The first FIR was filed based on a complaint by a private individual, invoking offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including:

• Section 196: Promoting enmity between groups.
• Section 197: Imputations prejudicial to national integration.
• Section 152: Acts endangering sovereignty and unity.
• Section 299: Culpable homicide (although the applicability of this section remains questionable).

The second FIR was filed by Renu Bhatia, Chairperson of the Haryana Women’s Commission, invoking:

• Section 79: Insult to a woman’s modesty.
• Section 353: Public mischief.
• Section 152: Repeated from the earlier FIR.

Mahmudabad was remanded to judicial custody but was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on May 21. At that stage, the Court refused to stay the investigation or quash the FIRs. Instead, it directed the Haryana Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed of senior IPS officers not hailing from Haryana or Delhi, to objectively assess whether the language used in the two posts warranted any criminal charges.

Concerns raised and Court’s May 28 clarification

Following Mahmudabad’s release, his counsel expressed concerns that the SIT might overstep its brief. Taking note of this, the Supreme Court, by its order dated May 28, had expressly clarified that:

• The SIT’s investigation must be limited strictly to the contents of the two FIRs and the two social media posts that form their basis.
• No “fishing or roving inquiries” should be undertaken.
• Accessing digital devices or delving into matters such as travel history would be impermissible.
• The Professor was barred only from writing on the sub judice matter, but remained free to express his views on other unrelated topics.

Despite these directions, Mahmudabad was called repeatedly for questioning and his devices were subjected to forensic analysis. These actions were brought to the Court’s attention during the July 16 hearing.

Detailed report on previous hearing may be read here.

Judicial concerns and oral observations

The Bench also made a number of critical oral observations during the hearing:

• Justice Kant questioned the SIT’s intent, as reported by Bar&Bench, asking “Why is the SIT, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They can say that the article is an opinion and does not constitute an offence or otherwise. But they cannot widen the probe.”
• When the ASG requested that the Court direct Mahmudabad to continue appearing before the SIT if needed, the Court refused, adding: “You do not need him. You need a dictionary.”
• Additionally, when ASG SV Raju sought more time for the investigation, the Court replied: “SIT can always say that there is nothing in this FIR. But we are examining other issues. Why take two months for this? Then this case can be closed.”

Court’s directions on July 16

In light of the SIT’s conduct, the Supreme Court issued the following clear and binding directions:

1. Time-bound conclusion of investigation: The SIT must conclude its investigation within four weeks, with no extensions.
2. Scope strictly limited: The SIT must restrict itself exclusively to examining the language, phrasing, and content of the two Facebook posts to determine if any offence is made out under the BNS provisions cited in the FIRs.
3. No further summons: The SIT cannot summon Mahmudabad again for questioning, as he has already cooperated fully and handed over his devices.
4. Continued interim protection: The interim bail and protection from arrest granted to Professor Mahmudabad will continue until further orders.
5. No blanket speech restriction: The Court reiterated that Mahmudabad is free to publish or express opinions on any issue except the specific posts or matters currently sub judice before the Court.
6. Reminder of prior judicial direction: The Court reaffirmed its May 28 order, warning the SIT not to exceed the limited remit it was assigned.

This hearing marks a crucial moment in the case, with the Supreme Court decisively upholding the principle that criminal investigations must not become disproportionate intrusions into constitutionally protected freedoms, particularly where expression is concerned. By restraining the SIT from engaging in a sweeping or speculative probe, the Court sought to protect both the integrity of the investigation and the petitioner’s rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In a case that straddles the fine line between national security, free speech, and academic freedom, the Supreme Court has now sent a strong signal against state overreach and in favour of judicially monitored, narrow-scope investigations.

Related:

‘Seeking peace, calling out hate crimes not a crime’: Former Civil Servants Group on Mahmudabad

In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad

SC: Interim bail granted to professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad; SIT to probe posts on Operation Sindoor

How high is the price of criticism? Professor Mahmudabad arrested for his criticism of politics of hatred

Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad’s Posts that Haryana Police Calls ‘Sedition’