The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Haryana Police’s Special Investigation Team that its probe into comments made by Ashoka University Associate Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad about the press briefings on Operation Sindoor should be limited to the two social media posts he made, and asked why the probe was being expanded, reported Live Law.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also restrained the investigation team from further summoning Mahmudabad in the matter. “You don’t require him [Mahmudabad], you require a dictionary,” Kant was quoted as saying.

“Why is the SIT, on the face of it, misdirecting itself?” he asked.

The bench made the observations after advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, informed the court that the SIT had seized electronic devices and was questioning the assistant professor about trips he had made abroad in the last 10 years.

Sibal highlighted that the court had on May 28 directed the SIT to only probe the allegations made in the two first information reports filed against Mahmudabad.

“Do not try to expand the scope,” the court had said at the time. “SIT is free to form opinion. Do not go left and right.”

The court had also questioned the need for seizing Mahmudabad’s digital devices.

On Wednesday, the court acknowledged that despite its earlier order, Mahmudabad had cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices.

The court also reminded the SIT about its May 28 order even though it “may not be expedient or desirable for us to comment on the manner in which SIT has proceeded”.

It directed that the probe in the matter be completed within four weeks.

The bench also clarified that the bail conditions imposed on the assistant professor only restrain him from making comments about the sub-judice matter and held that he can talk or write about other topics without restrictions, Bar and Bench reported.

Two cases have been filed against Mahmudabad, who heads the political science department at Ashoka University, for his comments about the media briefings on the Indian military operation against terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir initiated in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

One of the cases was filed based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s youth wing in Haryana.

The second case was filed on the basis of a complaint by Renu Bhatia, the chairperson of the Haryana State Women’s Commission.

Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18.

On May 21, the court granted him interim bail. However, it declined to halt the investigation against him. It had also instructed the Haryana police chief to form a Special Investigation Team to look into the meaning of the words used by Mahmudabad.

Additionally, he was barred from posting or publishing content related to the social media posts that are under scrutiny. He was also directed not to comment on the Pahalgam attack and India’s subsequent military response.

He faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty and words or gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty, among others.

What Mahmudabad said

On May 8, in a social media post, Mahmudabad had highlighted the apparent irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had represented the Army during the media briefings about the Indian military operation.

“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,” he had said.

Mahmudabad had said that the optics of the press briefings by Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh were important, “but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy”.

The Haryana women’s panel had accused the professor of attempting to “vilify national military actions”.

Bhatia said that he had ignored the panel’s summons on May 14. She further said that when the commission visited the university on May 15, he did not appear before it.

Mahmudabad has said that he only exercised his fundamental right to freedom of speech in order to promote peace and harmony.

The professor maintained that his remarks had been “completely misunderstood” by the commission and that its notice failed to highlight how his posts were “contrary to the right of or laws for women”.

Also read: