SC puts trial on hold in case against Ashoka University professor Mahmudabad

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday extended its order restraining the trial court from taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Haryana SIT (Special Investigation Team) in the FIRs against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was booked over his social media posts on Operation Sindoor.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju informed the court that although the chargesheet had been filed in August 2025, the Haryana government had not yet granted sanction for prosecution.

Raju sought more time to obtain clear instructions on whether the state government was inclined to withhold sanction “as a one-time magnanimity” and close the matter. Accepting the request, the court granted him time to seek instructions and posted the case for hearing after six weeks.

During the hearing, the apex court orally remarked that it expected Mahmudabad to act responsibly in the interim.

“We also don’t want that as soon as they decide not to grant sanction, you go and write any damn thing you want. If they show magnanimity, then you also have to be responsible,” the bench observed.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, submitted that there was nothing in the matter that warranted continuation of proceedings.

Earlier court directions

The case stems from two FIRs lodged in May 2025 against Mahmudabad over social media posts related to Operation Sindoor, which, police allege, endangered the sovereignty and integrity of the country. He was arrested by Haryana Police on 18 May and later granted interim bail by the Supreme Court.

Over the past months, the apex court has repeatedly intervened in the manner of investigation and the conditions imposed on the professor.

• On 21 May, the court granted him interim bail but refused to stay the investigation, while restraining him from expressing any opinion on terrorist attacks on Indian soil or the counter-response by Indian armed forces.

• On 28 May, the court said there was no impediment to his right to free speech but barred him from posting anything online about the cases against him.

• On 16 July, the court questioned the Haryana SIT’s line of investigation, saying it had “misdirected itself”, and directed the SIT — headed by a senior police officer — to confine itself strictly to the two FIRs and submit a report within four weeks.

The court had also made it clear that the subject matter of the probe was limited to the two FIRs and asked the police not to go “left and right” in the investigation, including by seeking access to electronic devices beyond the scope of the complaints.

FIRs and legal provisions

The two FIRs were registered at Rai police station in Sonipat district — one on a complaint by the chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, Renu Bhatia, and the other on a complaint by a village sarpanch.

Mahmudabad was booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:

• Section 152 — acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India

• Section 353 — statements conducing to public mischief

• Section 79 — deliberate acts aimed at insulting the modesty of a woman

• Section 196(1) — promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion

The arrest had triggered sharp reactions, with several political parties and academicians condemning the action and raising concerns over freedom of expression.

With the Supreme Court now extending its restraint on trial court proceedings and seeking clarity on the state’s stand on sanction, the future course of the prosecution will hinge on the Haryana government’s decision over the next six weeks.

With PTI inputs