SC restrains trial court from taking note of chargesheet against Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudababd

The Supreme Court on Monday halted proceedings against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, restraining a Haryana trial court from taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed against him in connection with his social media posts on Operation Sindoor. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also ordered that no charges be framed while the matter is under its consideration.

The directive came after the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted on the court’s order, submitted that it had filed a closure report in one of the two FIRs against Mahmudabad, but in the other, it had gone ahead and filed a chargesheet on 22 August.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, termed this development “most unfortunate”, pointing out that the charges invoke section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the sedition clause, whose Constitutional validity is still under judicial review.

The Supreme Court, while directing Mahmudabad’s counsel to prepare a chart of the alleged offences, noted that one FIR had already been closed and ordered that all related proceedings be quashed. Earlier, on 16 July, the same bench had criticised the Haryana SIT’s handling of the investigation, observing that “it misdirected itself”.

Mahmudabad, a widely respected academic, historian and political thinker, was arrested on 18 May after two FIRs were lodged in Sonipat district. The complaints — one by Haryana State Commission for Women chairperson Renu Bhatia and another by a local sarpanch — accused him of endangering national integrity through his remarks.

The right to speak freely

The charges invoked a wide range of BNS provisions, including those relating to sedition, promoting enmity, public mischief and even “insulting the modesty of a woman.”

That such sweeping and disparate provisions were applied against a professor for his social media commentary has been seen by many as a sign of overreach. But critics also argue that Mahmudabad’s Muslim identity has made him a convenient target in an atmosphere where minority voices are increasingly vulnerable to scrutiny and hostility.

To them, the selective eagerness of state agencies to press sedition charges against a Muslim academic reflects not only the erosion of academic freedom but also a broader climate of suspicion around dissenting minorities.

Though he secured interim bail in May, the drawn-out investigation has effectively become its own form of punishment. Civil society groups and fellow academics note that the use of sedition — a colonial-era law whose future hangs on constitutional review — only heightens the sense that Mahmudabad’s ordeal is as much about silencing critique as it is about criminal law.

The hearings ahead will test whether the courts can draw a line under what many describe as harassment cloaked as investigation. For Mahmudabad’s supporters, however, the damage has already been done: his case stands as a stark reminder of how dissent, scholarship and identity can intersect to make individuals particularly vulnerable in today’s India.

With PTI inputs