The Supreme Court on Monday halted trial proceedings against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, restraining a lower court from moving forward with charges framed over his controversial social media posts related to Operation Sindoor.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued the interim order after the Haryana Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the apex court submitted its findings. The SIT informed the court that it had filed a closure report in one of the two FIRs registered against the professor, while a chargesheet had been filed in the second on August 22.
The top court ordered that proceedings linked to the closed FIR be quashed and temporarily barred the trial court from framing charges in the other case.
‘Most Unfortunate Chargesheet,’ Says Sibal
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, criticised the chargesheet as “most unfortunate,” noting that it invoked Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) a sedition-linked provision that is currently under judicial review.
The bench directed Sibal to review the chargesheet in detail and present a summary of the alleged offences before the next hearing.
Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 by Haryana Police, based on two FIRs filed in Rai, Sonipat, following complaints that his social media posts endangered national sovereignty and integrity.
The complaints were filed by the Haryana State Commission for Women chairperson and a local village sarpanch. He was charged under multiple sections of the BNS, including: Section 152 (sedition-related), Section 353 (public mischief), Section 79 (insult to the modesty of a woman), Section 196(1) (promoting enmity between groups)
Outrage Over Arrest, NHRC Steps In
The arrest triggered widespread condemnation from academics, politicians, civil society groups, and human rights organisations, many of whom argued that the case represents a chilling attack on academic freedom and reflects religious profiling.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognisance of the incident, observing that the circumstances “prima facie disclose a violation of the human rights and liberty of the Professor.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court had also expressed dissatisfaction with the SIT’s investigation, calling it “misdirected,” and granted Mahmudabad interim bail on May 21, while allowing the investigation to continue.
With one FIR now closed and trial proceedings on hold in the other, the case remains under judicial watch. The next steps hinge on the Supreme Court’s review of the chargesheet and the broader constitutional challenge to Section 152 of the new criminal code.
This case continues to raise critical questions around free speech, academic dissent, and the use of sedition-like laws under India’s evolving legal framework.
