"Dog Whistling": Says Supreme Court While Ordering SIT Probe Against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Over Social Media Posts On Operation Sindoor

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “Everyone has the right to express… but is it the time to speak in such a communal tone? The country has faced a big challenge, civilians were attacked, and at that time… why are they trying to gain popularity on this occasion?”

The Bench remarked, “This is what we call ‘dog whistling’ in law. Some opinions are not nation-building. But while giving opinions, one should use respectful, simple language. Deliberate insult or discomfort isn’t acceptable. We know he is educated. He could have conveyed it more respectfully. When the choice of words is to insult or humiliate the other side, it becomes problematic.”

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddhartha Luthra appeared for Professor Mahmudabad, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared for the State of Haryana.

Kapil Sibal read from the professor’s post and submitted, “With the greatest respect, this is a highly patriotic statement.” He argued that the petitioner was “saluting them, not derogating them.” He further stated, “It could have waited after the 10th, but there is no criminality. Why was the next complaint filed at 6:30 AM in the morning?”

Sibal said, “It’s a patriotic statement, My Lords. Just see what he says about the idea of India… he ends with ‘Jai Hind’.” He read another statement saying that despite the ceasefire, civilians are still facing problems.

He submitted, “I completely agree with Your Lordship, but it is not creating any communal tensions. His wife is nine months pregnant. Delivery can happen any time. He is in judicial custody.”

Justice Surya Kant observed, “Let us see further… ‘there are those who are mindlessly advocating for war…’ He remarked that while the petitioner is giving an opinion on the effects of war on civilians, army personnel, etc., he is also turning to politics".

Justice Kant stated, “We don’t know… I have a right to this, right to do that, as if the whole country is distributing rights for many years.”

The Court added, “When the choice of words is deliberately to insult, humiliate, or cause some kind of discomfort to the other party… You could have conveyed it in very simple language without hurting others. Use terms which are simple, respectful.”

ASG S.V. Raju raised an objection, stating, “Why are they not going to the High Court? It is an equally efficacious remedy.” He further said, “Let me have a look at the petition. A short date may be fixed.” He added, “The second statement is worse than the first. My friend has not read it completely. Let this matter be kept on Friday.”

Justice Kant responded, “That’s a valid objection. But now that the Supreme Court has entertained the writ petition under Article 32, tell us: where has he tried to outrage the modesty of women—remotely, directly or indirectly?” He added, “Has he even remotely, directly or indirectly tried to say something against the women officers?”

Justice Kant also remarked, “The entire projection is that he is anti-war. Because families, army personnel, civilians suffer in war, but countries may gain. Someone with an analytical mind must be careful with language. Words used, references like ‘left on north side, will target the south side’—some words carry double meaning.”

The Court refused to stay the investigation and directed, “Having regard to the two online posts which have led to FIR registration, we are satisfied that no case of staying the investigation is made out.”

However, the Bench directed the Director General of Police, Haryana to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours, comprising three officers not belonging to Haryana or Delhi. The petitioner shall join the investigation and fully cooperate.

The Bench further directed that one of the officers must be a woman officer. The petitioner shall be released on interim bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat.

In addition to terms and conditions of the CJM, it is directed that the petitioner shall not write any online article or make any online speech related to both posts which are subject matter of investigation.

The Court also directed that the petitioner must refrain from making any online comments in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter response given by the Indian government.

The Court observed, “Today only we read in the paper… the students and professors—if they dare to do anything, we will not accept this. If they try to join hands etc., we know how to deal with these people, they are within our jurisdiction.”

ASG S.V. Raju concluded by stating, “We are in the process of gathering incriminating material through remand.”

Background

On May 19, 2025, the matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before the Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, who agreed to list the matter urgently.

Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested by the Haryana Police on May 18, 2025, based on two FIRs registered against him, one on the complaint of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) office-bearer, and the other by the Haryana State Commission for Women. The FIRs invoked provisions pointing to sedition and hurting religious sentiments. The action was taken following his remarks on India’s Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, which were posted on social media. The Women’s Commission had earlier summoned the professor, alleging his comments were inflammatory and anti-national.

Cause Title: Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana (W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025)