The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested the State of Haryana to consider withholding sanction for the prosecution of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in connection with criminal proceedings arising from his social media posts on Operation Sindoor, indicating that any such forbearance should be treated as an exceptional, one-time measure.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that although the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had submitted its final report in August 2025, the State of Haryana had, till date, neither granted nor refused sanction under the applicable statutory provisions. In the absence of such sanction, the criminal court remained jurisdictionally barred from proceeding further, it added.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the Haryana government, informed the Court that the issue of sanction was still under active consideration. He sought time to obtain instructions on whether the State intended to decline sanction altogether, bringing the proceedings to a close.
Accepting the submission, the Bench granted six weeks’ time and directed that the interim protection earlier granted to the accused would continue to operate.
While refraining from examining the merits of the allegations at this stage, the Bench indicated that if the State were inclined to adopt a one-time lenient approach, judicial scrutiny of the factual and legal substratum of the charges may not be necessary. At the same time, it underscored the corresponding expectation of restraint and responsibility on the part of the accused, particularly in matters touching upon national security narratives and pending judicial proceedings.
The Apex Court orally observed that any magnanimity shown by the executive would necessarily require commensurate circumspection in public expression by the academic.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, reiterated that the allegations disclosed no cognisable offence and stated that the accused accepted the Court’s observations regarding responsible conduct.
In May 2025, Haryana Police had lodged two FIRs at Rai Police Station, Sonipat, on the basis of complaints filed by the Chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women and a local village sarpanch. The complaints alleged that the social media posts made by Mahmudabad in the context of Operation Sindoor undermined national sovereignty, promoted communal disharmony, and offended the dignity of women.
Mahmudabad was booked under Sections 152 (acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), 353 (statements conducing to public mischief), 79 (acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and 196(1) (promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to the professor while declining to stay the investigation. It simultaneously constituted a three-member SIT comprising senior IPS officers, limiting the inquiry strictly to the contents of the two FIRs and cautioning against any roving inquiry, particularly into personal devices, foreign travel, or material unconnected with the impugned posts.
On May 28, 2025, the Bench clarified that Mahmudabad’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution remained intact, subject to the restriction that he refrain from commenting on the sub-judice proceedings or the specific allegations under investigation. He was also directed not to express opinions relating to terrorist incidents on Indian soil or the military response thereto during the pendency of the case.
On July 16, 2025, the Court expressed prima facie disapproval of the SIT’s investigative approach, observing that it appeared to have strayed beyond the scope of the FIRs. Reiterating settled constitutional principles, the Bench referred to precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, emphasising that criminal law could not be employed to chill legitimate expression or academic discourse in the absence of clearly met statutory thresholds.
The Apex Court recorded in its order that its earlier directions restraining the trial court from taking cognisance of the charge sheet would continue to remain in force and listed the matter for further hearing after six weeks.
The post Operation Sindoor remarks: Supreme Court suggests to Haryana to close proceedings against Ashoka University professor appeared first on India Legal.