‘Don’t Expand Scope’: SC limits SIT probe against Ali Khan Mahmudabad

Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly restricted the scope of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe initiated against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad.

The Court’s decision came after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Professor Mahmudabad, expressed apprehension that the SIT, constituted by the State of Haryana following a previous Supreme Court order, might delve into matters beyond the scope of the subject FIRs.

Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!

According to Live Law, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta issued the directive: “We direct the SIT to confine its investigation to the contents of the two FIRs subject matter of these proceedings. It shall produce the investigation report before this Court before filing it in a jurisdictional court. The interim protection will continue until further orders.”

The court must now confine the investigation, which stemmed from his social media posts concerning ‘Operation Sindoor’, solely to the contents of the two existing First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against him.

Responding to these concerns, Justice Kant categorically instructed the Haryana Additional Advocate General (AAG) to strictly limit the SIT probe’s scope to the two FIRs pertaining to the current case, preventing any expansion.

Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!

Notably, Sibal also raised the issue of authorities attempting to access Professor Mahmudabad’s digital devices. Justice Kant firmly addressed this, noting that the FIRs were already part of the record.

“Both FIRs are matters of record. Where is the question of his devices? Don’t try to expand the scope. SIT is free to form an opinion. Don’t go left and right,” the judge cautioned the Haryana AAG.

During the proceedings, Sibal sought a relaxation of the conditions imposed on Professor Mahmudabad’s interim bail.

“He won’t do anything, your lordships may take it from me… please record my statement and remove the conditions. That order may not be continued. These are mature people teaching in universities. We understand your sentiment, petitioner knows where he has landed,” Sibal urged.

However, Justice Kant clarified that they intended the conditions to introduce a “cooling-off period” and affirmed that the Court is closely monitoring the situation.

The judge, while asking Sibal to “wait for some time and remind on the next date,” stated that Professor Mahmudabad retains his freedom to write articles on topics other than the subject matter of the case.

 “We don’t want a parallel media trial on this issue. He is free to write on anything else, just not on the subject matter. No impediment on his right to speech, etc.,” Justice Kant stated.

The bench also questioned the Haryana government about its response after the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took cognizance of how authorities registered the FIR in Professor Mahmudabad’s case. “You tell us about that also,” Justice Kant directed the Haryana AAG.

Haryana police arrested Professor Mahmudabad on May 18 after lodging an FIR over his social media posts.

He remained in custody until May 21, when the Supreme Court granted him interim bail.

At that time, the Court had refused to stay the investigation and instead directed the Haryana DGP to constitute an SIT of senior IPS officers, not from Haryana or Delhi, to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”

As a condition of interim bail, the top Court had restrained Professor Mahmudabad from posting or writing articles related to the subject social media posts, or from expressing opinions on terrorist attacks on Indian soil or India’s counter-response.

Previously, when concerns arose about registering further FIRs on the same issue, Justice Kant had orally instructed the Haryana government to prevent such occurrences.

The judge had also expressed reservations about Professor Mahmudabad’s comments in his social media posts, describing them as “dog-whistling” and suggesting he could have used “polite, respectful and neutral language, without hurting the sentiments of others.”

Referring to Professor Mahmudabad’s comments about “right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi” and his statement that they should equally express concerns for victims of mob lynching and bulldozing, Justice Kant had remarked, “So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!”

Justice Kant also took a stern view of students and teachers condemning Professor Mahmudabad’s arrest, warning, “If they dare to do anything, we will pass an order.”

Professor Mahmudabad is facing charges under Sections 196, 152, etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty, and words or gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty.

Moreover, the Haryana State Commission for Women, headed by Renu Bhatia, had also summoned him.