“Investigation Must Be In The Right Direction”: Supreme Court Seeks Clarity From SIT On Seizure Of Devices In Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Over Operation Sindoor Posts

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, “There are two posts or articles on the basis of which two FIRs were registered. We did not want to assume the role of investigating. That is why we asked the SIT to examine the language of the posts… to say which line or para, how offence is made out on those contents.”

When the Bench asked about the direction of the probe, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad submitted, “They need two more months. They want to know for the last 10 years where I have travelled. How is this relevant?”

Justice Kant remarked, “We do not want to intervene in the investigation, but it should be in the right direction.”

ASG SV Raju, appearing for the State, submitted that if, during the investigation into these FIRs some other incriminating material is found, the SIT may take action as per law. He argued, “Suppose during investigation of cheating, a person is found to have committed murder also, a separate FIR will be registered.”

Justice Kant asked, “Any incriminating material is with reference to FIR under investigation. If such material is irrelevant to the subject FIR, how is it going to impact this investigation?” He added, “We are just asking the SIT for what purpose they have seized devices. We will call them.”

Justice Kant further observed, “Time is the second issue. We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself.”

Raju submitted, “There is nothing to stop the SIT from looking into it. It is too much to assume they would do this.”

Justice Kant responded, “Nobody is assuming. Ultimate evaluation of report is to be done by judicial authority.”

Sibal added, “He’s been called four times. For what? Articles are before you. Read it. What is it that I have said? It is the most patriotic statement. You read the statement, Mr Raju, and tell me.”

Justice Kant clarified, “On general principle of law, SIT can always say we don’t find any offence in this case but there’s something else that needs to be investigated. This can be closed, but rest can be taken care of by law. We are not talking about this case.”

Sibal submitted, “There can’t be a roving enquiry. That’s not fair.”

The Court noted that the two FIRs against Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad are based on social media posts made by him on May 8 and May 11, 2025, relating to the attack on tourists in Pahalgam. It recalled that earlier directions had allowed the investigation to proceed solely for a holistic understanding of the language and expressions used in the two posts.

“Since some apprehensions were expressed on scope of investigation, this Court in no uncertain terms directed the SIT that investigation shall be confined to the two FIRs… SIT was to examine whether the contents of the 2 posts made by the petitioner constitute any offense, and if so, such attribution is referable to which penal law?”

The Court recorded that as per the interim report filed by the SIT Chairperson, Mahmudabad has already joined the investigation and handed over several electronic devices, which were deposited with the forensic laboratory. The SIT is currently examining the forensic reports.

Though the Court refrained from commenting on how the SIT has proceeded so far, it reminded the team of the scope set out in its earlier order dated May 28. “We direct the SIT to conclude its investigation with respect to the contents of the 2 posts as early as possible but not later than 4 weeks,” the Bench said, also observing that since Mahmudabad has already cooperated and submitted his devices, it “may not be necessary to summon him again for joining investigation.”

Clarifying earlier directions, the Court further said, “With a view to clarify the confusion being created with respect to conditions imposed in para 6 of 21 May order, we make it clear that petitioner is entitled to continue to write any online post/article or express his opinion, except that he should not comment on sub judice matters.” The interim protection against arrest was directed to continue.

Background

Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, 2025, by Haryana Police over two FIRs linked to social media posts on India's military action under “Operation Sindoor.” The complaints, by a BJP office-bearer and the Haryana State Commission for Women, alleged sedition and incitement.

The Supreme Court on May 21, 2025, granted him interim bail but refused to stay the investigation. The Court directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours, excluding officers from Haryana or Delhi and including one woman officer.

Justice Surya Kant criticised the professor’s tone as “dog whistling” and stressed that expressions must remain respectful, especially in sensitive times. Mahmudabad was also barred from making any online comments related to the posts or Operation Sindoor.