Last week, Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor and Head of Political Science at Ashoka University, was arrested over a social media post related to Operation Sindoor.
The arrest sparked a heated legal battle and public debate on free speech, national integrity, and the limits of online expression.
On May 21, the Supreme Court granted bail to the professor but did not hold back. The judges criticized Mahmudabad for his social media comments.
The court called his words “dogwhistling” and questioned why he sought “cheap popularity” by posting during a sensitive time when the country is under threat. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued for the professor’s free speech rights, but the bench reminded everyone that with rights come duties too.
The Case Against Professor Mahmudabad
The professor was charged under sections of the law dealing with promoting enmity between groups and threatening national sovereignty. The controversy began after his social media post about the Indian military’s Operation Sindoor briefing, where two women officers, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, presented findings.
Mahmudabad’s comments praised the optics of women officers leading the briefing but also criticized right-wing supporters who applauded it. He pointed out the hypocrisy of ignoring victims of mob lynchings and hate crimes.
This triggered two FIRs, including one filed by the Haryana State Commission for Women, accusing him of disparaging women in uniform.
Also Read Haryana YouTuber Arrested for Pakistan Espionage: What We Know So Far
The Supreme Court’s Take
Justice Surya Kant, part of the bench, made it clear that free speech is not a free-for-all. He said, “Where is the duty?” emphasizing that citizens must consider the timing and impact of their words.
The court also set conditions for Mahmudabad’s bail: no more posts or speeches about Operation Sindoor or the Pahalgam attack, and he must surrender his passport.
To ensure impartial investigation, the court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by officers outside Haryana or Delhi, including a woman officer. This shows the seriousness with which the judiciary treats allegations of hurting public sentiment and national unity.
The Professor’s Response
Mahmudabad claimed the women’s commission misunderstood his posts. He insisted there was no criminal intent and that he only expressed hurt feelings, especially since his wife is nine months pregnant and he was jailed.
Senior Advocate Sibal argued that Mahmudabad’s remarks were “anti-war,” highlighting the human cost of conflict and warning about war profiteers.
This case is far from over. It reflects the larger clash between free speech and nationalism in India today. It also raises questions about how social media posts can be interpreted, investigated, and prosecuted. Public intellectuals like Mahmudabad must tread carefully, balancing honest critique with sensitivity to national unity.
For those following freedom of expression in India, this is a moment to watch closely. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail but impose restrictions could set a precedent for future cases involving social media and national security.
Also Read 10 Busted in ‘Pak Spy Ring’: How Deep Did the Espionage Go? Get The Full Details Here
