Top News

Court Intervention in Charges Against Professor

On Monday, the Supreme Court intervened to prevent a magistrate from acknowledging a chargesheet submitted by the Special Investigation Team of Haryana Police against Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an Associate Professor at Ashoka University. This action was taken in response to Mahmudabad's remarks regarding press briefings related to Operation Sindoor.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi also dismissed all actions in a second FIR against Mahmudabad. The court ruled that no charges should be brought against him.

This decision followed a statement from Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represented the Haryana Police, indicating that a closure report had been filed in the second case.

Mahmudabad's advocate, Kapil Sibal, expressed concern over the charges, labeling it as 'most unfortunate' that his client was charged under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is currently being challenged in another case.

Section 152 addresses actions that threaten India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. Critics have suggested that this section effectively reintroduces the sedition law, which was previously defined under Section 124A, when the BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code in July 2024.

Sibal criticized the actions against Mahmudabad, stating, 'You are just persecuting people in this country, that’s all.'

The bench requested Sibal to review the chargesheet and prepare a summary of the alleged offenses, indicating that they would consider these submissions at the next hearing.

Background on the Cases Against Mahmudabad

Mahmudabad, who leads the political science department at Ashoka University, is facing two cases related to his comments on media briefings concerning the Indian military's operations against terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, initiated in response to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22.

The first case was initiated following a complaint from Yogesh Jatheri, the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing in Haryana.

The second case arose from a complaint by Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Women’s Commission.

Mahmudabad was taken into custody on May 18, and on May 21, he was granted interim bail by the court, although the investigation against him was allowed to continue. The court also directed the Haryana police chief to establish a Special Investigation Team to analyze the implications of Mahmudabad's statements.

Furthermore, he was prohibited from sharing or publishing any content related to the scrutinized social media posts and was instructed not to comment on the Pahalgam attack or India's military response.

The charges against Mahmudabad include violations of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning actions detrimental to communal harmony, making statements likely to incite discord, and acts that jeopardize national sovereignty, among others.

Details of Mahmudabad's Comments

In a social media post dated May 8, Mahmudabad pointed out the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who represented the Army during the media briefings about the military operation.

He remarked, 'Perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens.'

Mahmudabad emphasized that while the visuals of the press briefings by Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh were significant, they must lead to tangible outcomes; otherwise, they are merely hypocritical.

The Haryana women’s panel accused him of attempting to 'vilify national military actions' and claimed he ignored their summons on May 14. They also stated that he failed to appear when the commission visited the university on May 15.

Mahmudabad defended his actions as an exercise of his fundamental right to free speech aimed at fostering peace and harmony.

He asserted that his comments had been 'completely misunderstood' by the commission, which failed to demonstrate how his posts contradicted women's rights or laws.

---