
‘You don't require him, you require a dictionary': SC to Haryana SIT probing Ali Mahmudabad's posts
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the SIT was formed specifically to investigate the two social media posts and asked why it was expanding the scope.
The top court directed the SIT to complete its inquiry within four weeks, legal news website LiveLaw reported.
The bench pointed out that the SIT was constituted specifically to understand the true meaning of the social media posts and to ascertain if they constituted any offence. The bench asked why the petitioner's devices were seized.
"We just want to know from SIT...for what purpose they have seized devices? We will call them (officers)," Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing the State.
Noting that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices, the Court relaxed his bail conditions and directed that he should not be summoned again.
"You don't require him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary," Justice Kant said.
The Court reiterated that the investigation must remain confined to the contents of the two FIRs and not become a broader inquiry.
Mahmudabad, who teaches Political Science at Haryana-based Ashoka University, was arrested on May 18 for his remarks regarding press briefings on Operation Sindoor, India's military action in May on terror camps in Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people, mostly tourists, in South Kashmir on April 22.
The arrest was based on a complaint filed by Yogesh Jatheri, the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Yuva Morcha in Haryana, reports said quoting his lawyers.
On May 21, however, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Mahmudabad and directed the constitution of a three-member SIT to investigate the case.
The Haryana Police said the two FIRs were lodged at the Rai Police Station in Sonipat – one based on a complaint from the chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women, Renu Bhatia, and the other on the complaint of a village sarpanch.
Mahmudabad's remarks were annexed to the commission's notice, and in one of them, he purportedly said right-wing people applauding Col Sofiya Qureshi should demand protection for victims of mob lynchings and "arbitrary" bulldozing of properties.
Mahmudabad was alleged to have described the media briefings by Col Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh as "optics".
"But optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it's just hypocrisy," he added.
The commission previously said an initial review of Mahmudabad's remarks raised concerns about the "disparagement of women in uniform, including Col Qureshi and Wing Commander Singh, and undermining their role as professional officers in the Indian Armed Forces".
Mahmudabad, 42, is a historian, political scientist, writer, poet and a faculty at Ashoka University, Sonipat, Haryana.
Born in Lucknow on December 2, 1982, Ali is the son of Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan, popularly known as Raja Sahab Mahmudabad, who spent about 40 years in a legal battle to reclaim his ancestral property seized by the government under the Enemy Properties Act. Raja Saheb passed away in October 2023.
Key directions and developments from the hearing:
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad is free to write articles and social media posts, except on the subjudice matter.
-The Court clarified that its earlier orders did not restrict his expression.
-The SIT does not need to summon him again for questioning. The Court noted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and his devices have been examined.
-The probe must be completed within four weeks, strictly limited to the language and content of the two Facebook posts related to the violence in Pahalgam.
-Justice Surya Kant questioned the course of the SIT's probe, observing: 'Why is the SIT, on the face of it, misdirecting itself?'
-The Court reminded the SIT that it was set up specifically to examine whether any offence was made out from the phrasing used in the posts—not to launch a roving inquiry.
- Interim protection from arrest granted to Mahmudabad will continue.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
2 minutes ago
- Hans India
11/7 acquittal: HC slams prosecution's failure to establish type of bombs used to hit Mumbai trains
Mumbai: The prosecution failed to even establish the type of bombs used in the crime, the Bombay High Court said on Monday castigating the shoddy probe that resulted in the acquittal of 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. "The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the offence beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused on each count, it is unsafe to reach the satisfaction that the Appellants/Accused have committed the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced," said a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Justice S. Chandak. On July 11, 2006, seven bomb serial blasts in packed Mumbai local trains brought the maximum city on its knees within 11 minutes. The terror attack left 189 dead and 800 injured. Out of the 12 people convicted by the trial court, five were handed death sentences and others were given life imprisonment. The High Court's acquittal order is a major blow to the investigation agencies which, according to Justices Kilor and Chandak, failed to even present evidence on the type of bombs used in the serial blasts. "The circuit boards recovered from Mohd. Faisal Shaikh and Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari are of no help to the prosecution to establish the present offence as the prosecution failed to bring any evidence on record and to establish the type of bombs used in the present crime," the High Court said. Justices Kilor and Chandak said, "Though the prosecution brought on record the technical report of the expert about the circuit board, it failed to establish the type of bombs used in the present crime. Thus, the said recovery is not relevant." On Monday, the 12 accused -- incarcerated for 19 years -- also succeeded to establish in the High Court the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements. As a result, the High Court held the statements inadmissible saying, "On all the tests relating to voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statements, the prosecution failed." The prosecution case against the accused was weakened further when it failed to share with the defence the Call Detail Record -- which were relied upon heavily to file charges. In 2015, a special court had convicted 12 accused in the case -- sentenced five of them to death and seven others to life imprisonment. Faisal Shaikh, Asif Khan, Kamal Ansari, Ehtesham Siddiqui, and Naveed Khan were sentenced to death. They had challenged this sentence in the High Court. The prosecution had argued that the attack was planned by Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, and carried out by operatives of Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba with help from the Students' Islamic Movement of India, a banned Indian group.


India.com
2 minutes ago
- India.com
Nothing is safe in Pakistan now... Pakistani experts afraid of India's..., scared of 'bunker buster' power of this Indian missile, not Brahmos
Nothing is safe in Pakistan now... Pakistani experts afraid of India's..., scared of 'bunker buster' power of this Indian missile, not Brahmos Following Operation Sindoor, Pakistan and the rest of the world saw the might of India's military power. India launched Operation Sindoor with missile strikes on terrorism-related infrastructure facilities of Pakistan-based militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan and PoK. For the first time India used Brahmos missile. How is Pakistan viewing Indian ballistic missiles? If Pakistan sees it as an existential threat and turns to nuclear weapons, such a response will be suicidal for both countries. With India's Agni-V ballistic missiles and high-power conventional bunker-buster missiles, Pakistan is now more scared. Pakistani experts are saying that now neither the army will be safe in their country nor any underground hideout. What is Pakistan scared of? Pakistan's Dawn newspaper has said in its report that India's Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) is modifying the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to carry a huge conventional warhead of 7,500 kg instead of a nuclear payload. This warhead can go up to 80-100 meters inside the ground before exploding. This will enable it to destroy deeply buried targets. Will work like a bunker buster bomb? The ability to penetrate its target underground will increase the power of the Agni missile manifold. Its ability to penetrate the ground is similar to America's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) i.e. bunker buster bomb . This missile allows India to attack strong targets located at long distances quickly and without any warning. India's new Agni-5 version can neutralise command centres, missile silos and other vital installations buried deep underground in countries like Pakistan and China. India is clearly developing a conventional weapon that can threaten the nuclear command bunkers and missile storage sites of its regional rivals, Dawn's report says. Will there be violation of the atomic principle? Pakistan is also concerned that the use of this weapon would not violate India's no first use (NFU) principle of nuclear weapons. The conventional Agni-5 bunker-buster could be argued to allow India to attack Pakistani nuclear assets without breaking its nuclear-freedom (NFU) pledge. With a smaller and geographically limited arsenal than India, Pakistan has not adopted a no first use policy. Its nuclear policy leaves open the option of first use, conditionally linked to existential threats, including an overwhelming conventional attack by India.


The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court upholds relief to BJP MP Tejasvi Surya in criminal case
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) dismissed the Karnataka government's plea against a high court order quashing the criminal case against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya. 'What is this? Don't politicise the matter. Fight your battles before the electorate,' a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran said. Mr. Surya was alleged to have disseminated fake news on a farmer's suicide in the state's Haveri district. The bench dismissed the appeal of the state government and cautioned it against the politicisation of legal proceedings. The case stemmed from a post shared by Mr. Surya on November 7, 2024, in which he cited a report from Kannada news portals claiming that a farmer, Rudrappa Channappa Balikai, was found dead after discovering that his land had been taken over by the Waqf Board. The post was subsequently deleted after it emerged that the claim was unfounded.