Posts on Operation Sindoor: SC agrees to hear Ashoka varsity prof’s plea against arrest

 The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea of Ashoka University’s faculty Ali Khan Mahmudabad, against his arrest for his social media posts over Operation Sindoor

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea of Ashoka University’s faculty Ali Khan Mahmudabad, against his arrest for his social media posts over Operation Sindoor.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the associate professor, and said the plea would come up on Tuesday or Wednesday.

“He has been arrested for a patriotic statement. Please list it during the day,” Sibal insisted.

“Please list it tomorrow or day after,” the CJI said.

Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 after two FIRs were lodged under stringent charges, including endangering sovereignty and integrity, for his social media posts over Operation Sindoor.

He was produced before a local court in Sonipat on May 18 and was remanded in police custody for two days in a case registered on a complaint from the Haryana State Commission for Women (HSCW) filed a day before.

The HSCW recently sent a notice to him questioning the remarks, though Mahmudabad maintained they were “misunderstood” and underscored his fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Haryana Police said the two FIRs were lodged at the Rai Police Station in Sonipat — one based on a complaint from the chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women, Renu Bhatia, and the other on the complaint of a village sarpanch.

In a letter dated May 16 to the state DGP, the HSCW lodged a complaint for registration of an FIR against Mahmudabad “based on prima facie evidence and precedent”.

“On the Commission chairperson’s complaint, the FIR has been lodged against Professor Ali of Ashoka University 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),” police said.

The case was lodged under BNS Sections 152, 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 197 (imputations, assertions, prejudicial to national integration) and 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs).

All sections are non-bailable.

Mahmudabad’s remarks were annexed to the commission’s notice, and in one of them, he purportedly said right-wing people applauding Col Sofiya Qureshi should demand protection for victims of mob lynchings and “arbitrary” bulldozing of properties.

The associate professor was alleged to have described the media briefings by Col Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh as “optics”.

“But optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it’s just hypocrisy,” he added.

The commission previously said an initial review of Mahmudabad’s remarks raised concerns about the “disparagement of women in uniform, including Col Qureshi and Wing Commander Singh, and undermining their role as professional officers in the Indian Armed Forces”.

Wing Commander Singh briefed the media alongside Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Col Qureshi on Operation Sindoor.

The commission’s complaint alleged the associate professor’s social media post was “interwoven with language that might read sympathising in the first glance to few but after a careful informed reading it portrays the words which are completely uncalled for in the current geopolitical space and domestic security and peace concerns”.

“His words such as ‘…arbitrary…senseless death…’ deserve serious condemnation in all shapes and forms as the context of the statement can neither be attributed to good faith nor can it be called ejusdem generis due to the absence of a declaration of war by the Government of India,” it added.

The complaint went on, “Observed through an objective lens and the prudent man test, it goes on to depict a clear meaning of calling the targeted retaliatory action of the Indian Army as arbitrary.” Being an academician, Ali, owes special responsibility towards society as a whole to be more careful with his words and his usage of cyber space to share the following sentiments cannot be seen to be aligned with fundamental right of free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, it added.

“The mention of only Col Qureshi during this statement clearly suggests the author’s intent to clothe his post with the colour of religious identity. This could have far-reaching repercussions, considering the power of cyberspace in the current times. It leads to the promotion of enmity amongst religious groups in India, leading to disharmony when we as a country must stand united in such challenging times, supporting the acts of our combat forces,” the complaint said.