New Delhi: Haryana Police’s special investigation team (SIT), which was set up on the directions of the Supreme Court to investigate two FIRs against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media posts on Operation Sindoor, was pulled up Wednesday for seizing the professor’s electronic devices and expanding the ambit of its probe.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi refrained the SIT from ‘misdirecting itself’ when told that the SIT, in addition to seizing the devices, had questioned Mahmudabad over his foreign trips. The judges reminded the SIT that its mandate, according to the court order, was limited to ascertaining the contents of his two social media posts.
On 21 May, the SC, while releasing Mahmudabad on anticipatory bail, ordered the constitution of a SIT to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts”. It even directed the professor to refrain from making public statements.
Later, the bench, on Mahmudabad’s apprehension that the SIT might be transgressing beyond the FIR against him, clarified that the probe should be limited to the two FIRs against him, ruling out the probe team’s intention to access the professor’s digital devices.
Mahmudabad faces two FIRs—one for committing acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, and the other for insulting the modesty of a woman—for two posts he wrote on Army officer Sofiya Qureshi, one of the two women officers, who became the face of the government during the Operation Sindoor briefings.
“We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine the contents of the post,” Justice Kant told additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, who appeared for the SIT.
The judges advised the SIT to conduct its probe in step with the court order and not to venture beyond the remit fixed by it.
“We just want to know from the SIT for what purpose they have seized the devices. We will call them,” the bench told Raju, who defended the SIT’s conduct by insisting that investigation was the prerogative of the investigating officer who seized the devices since the officer had to examine all the aspects of the case.
Then, the bench perused the SIT status report, which, specifically, mentioned the seizure of Mahmudabad’s devices. It was noticed that the professor cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices, as the summons directed him.
On seeing this, the court’s advice regarding the investigation was: “You don’t need him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary.”
In an order, the SC also said that since Mahmudabad had already presented himself and handed over his devices, he was no longer required to appear before the SIT.
“Though it may not be expedient or desirable for us to comment on the manner, in which SIT has proceeded, we, however, deem it to remind it, the mandate contained in our order dated 28 May and consequently direct the SIT to conclude the investigation with reference to the contents of the two social media posts as early as possible but not later than four weeks. Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation and handed over his personal gadgets, it seems to us that it may not be necessary to summon the petitioner again for investigation,” the order dictated in the open court said.
The apex court also clarified that the bail condition imposed on Mahmudabad, restraining him from speaking on issues, was confined to the subject of his earlier social media posts and that he was free to write or express opinions on other topics.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal condemned the roving inquiry the SIT had started against Mahmudabad, reminding the bench that the court had categorically asked the team to confine its probe to the contents of the social media posts. He objected to Raju’s statement that the investigating officer could use his discretion to investigate the matter and informed the bench that the professor had been summoned four times for questioning.
Sibal urged the bench to relax the bail conditions, including the one that required Mahmudabad to surrender his passport.
Responding to the senior counsel, the court said the bench would consider his prayer in the next hearing and that there was a need for a “cooling-off” period between the first order putting the bail conditions on Mahmudabad and the other one relaxing them.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Great sanghi drama, displaying deep hatred and total ignorance typical of the manuwadis visavis any matter concerning a person bearing a Muslim name. Fortunately the harassment cannot last long as apparently there is no scope to stretch it for much longer a period.
Why did the Supreme Court intervene in this case? There was absolutely no need to interfere with the police action against Prof. Mahmudabad.
It’s a travesty of justice that an individual like this, who hails from a royal family which was instrumental in the creation of Pakistan, has been allowed to stay on in India. Not only that, he has been appointed as a professor of history at Ashoka University – just the perfect place to continue with the family tradition of anti-India activities.
Shame on the Supreme Court and it’s pathetic judges!
The opinion of a moron who worships an illiterate Fake degree wala Feku has no value.
The Raja of Mahmudabad was one of the chief financiers of the Muslim League. A vocal supporter of the Pakistan Movement, he left no stone unturned to ensure that India was divided and Muslims got their “homeland”.
Now, his grandson, Prof. Mahmudabad, teaches history at Ashoka University – where he, very conveniently, puts the blame for Partition on Hindus, especially upper-caste ones, while brushing under the carpet his own family’s “illustrious” role in the creation of Pakistan. He wants rights and privileges accorded to the Indian citizen by the secular Constitution of a democratic nation after ensuring that his Muslim brothers/sisters got their own theocratic nation and minorities have, practically, no rights at all.
What is especially sickening is that The Print has been championing the “cause” of Prof. Mahmudabad ever since his arrest. In it’s effort to defend him and his deeds, it has even been critical of the Supreme Court orders.
Why the hell this supreme court wasting it’s and nations resources on this case? Those were two social media posts made by one individual in some part of the nation of 1.4 billion population. What is going on? Dismiss the case and move on the critical cases? Perhaps, SC itself needs, more than anyone else, a sense of responsibility of safeguarding the personal liberty, and constitutional freedoms.
Actually they don’t even need a dictionary. They need a sense of right and wrong. So much that is truly execrable flies right past them.