Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad being escorted by police personnel after his arrest
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned Haryana SIT’s line of investigation in the case of Ashoka University professor booked for social media posts on Operation Sindoor saying “it misdirected itself”.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the Haryana SIT headed by a senior police officer to only confine itself to the two FIRs against Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his contentious social media posts and see if there was an offence and submit its report in four weeks.
“We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,” Justice Kant said.
The bench said though it did not want to interfere or intervene with the investigation, it questioned the seizure of the cell phones and other electronic gadgets.
“It is open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs does not disclose any offence, this case can be closed. It can always say that during the course of investigation, they have come across certain incriminating materials, which constitute separate offences and the law will take its own course,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the SIT.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, submitted despite the court directing the SIT to focus on the contents of the FIR, it carried out a “roving inquiry” and sent the gadgets seized from the professor to forensic laboratory for examination.
He referred to the interim status report of the SIT saying it had received the forensic lab report of the gadgets and two more months were required for its examination.
Raju said the investigation was SIT’s prerogative and the accused couldn’t dictate terms of the probe.
“All you had to do was examine the posts, whether the expression, words or terminology constitute any offences alleged in the FIR. For that you do not need him, or a dictionary or his gadgets. We want to know for what purposes, these gadgets were seized?” the bench asked Raju.
Justice Kant said if Raju was unable to answer the question it would call the head of the SIT and them about the line of investigation.
Sibal said the posts were very patriotic statements and anyone looking at it would give the same view.
Raju argued to see if there was an offence, devices had to be examined to see if there was more than just social media posts.
“We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,” the bench reiterated.
Since Mahmudabad was cooperating with the investigation, there was no need to summon him again, it said.
The investigation should not have taken two days, it added.
“There are two social media posts and two FIRs. The question is very simple. Which line and which word or expression constitutes an offence. This is what the SIT, being an expert body, has to find out,” the top court said.
The bench relaxed the professor’s bail condition imposed on May 21 and allowed him write posts, articles and express any opinion except on the sub judice case.
On May 28, the top court said there was no impediment on the professor’s right to speech and expression, but barred him from sharing anything online on the cases against him.
The top court had made it clear that the subject matter of investigation was two FIRs lodged against the professor and asked the Haryana police not to go “left and right” in the investigation and seek the “devices”, which the cops said they would like to examine.
On May 21, the top court granted him interim bail, but refused to stay the investigation against him.
The top court had also restrained the professor from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by the Indian armed forces.
It directed a three-member SIT to look into the FIRs against him.
Haryana Police arrested Mahmudabad on May 18 after two FIRs were registered against him.
His contentious social media posts on Operation Sindoor, it is alleged, endangered the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
The two FIRs — one based on a complaint by the chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women, Renu Bhatia, and the other on a complaint by a village sarpanch — were lodged by Rai police in Sonipat district.
He was booked under BNS sections 152 (acts endangering sovereignty or unity and integrity of India), 353 (statements conducing to public mischief), 79 (deliberate actions aimed at insulting the modesty of a woman) and 196 (1) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion).
Several political parties and academicians condemned the arrest.
