Mahmudabad Case: Supreme Court Should Not Have Allowed Lawbreakers in Power to Escape Rebuke |
Listen to this article:
Nothing illustrates the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to defend free speech in ‘Naya Bharat’ better than the shabby denouement of the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case earlier this week.
Instead of standing up for the Ashoka University professor’s constitutionally protected speech – a Facebook post that on a plain (or even ‘between the lines’ reading) clearly violated no law – the Supreme Court has not only let the Haryana government get away with a mala fide case but also allowed it to issue a gratuitous ‘warning’ to Mahmudabad, one which the bench also implicitly endorsed by saying the professor “shall act in a prudent manner in the future”.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.
It is “prudent” at this point to remind ourselves of what exactly Mahmudabad wrote. The full May 8, 2025 post is still available. The post made three points. The first two were about how India was no longer prepared to make a distinction between non-state actors and the Pakistani military, that the resulting confrontation was of Pakistan’s making and that the mindless advocacy of a wider war would not help resolve what is essentially a political conflict. However, it was clearly his third point, which made a reference to the use of a Muslim officer of the Indian Army for official defence ministry briefings during Operation Sindoor that annoyed and angered the Bharatiya Janata Party:
“I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important.. but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.
“For me the press conference was just a fleeting glimpse – an illusion and allusion perhaps – to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built. As I said, the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united by its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”
Mahmudabad’s post led the Haryana police to register two FIRs, one at the behest of a state-level BJP leader and another because of a complaint by the head of the Haryana state commission for women. The charges were grave, and included the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita equivalent of sedition (i.e. Section 152) besides other offences. Based on these FIRs, the professor was actually taken into custody.
While it is hardly surprising that the BJP would get angry over Mahmudabad’s reminder of their track record in mob lynching and arbitrary demolitions, the Haryana police should have realised at the stage when the two complaints were filed that no case was made out. Yet it went ahead and registered the FIRs and worse, went ahead and arrested him – a clear violation of the constitution’s guarantee of free speech.
When the matter was brought to the Supreme Court last year, the professor was able to secure bail. But instead of also quashing the FIRs and pulling up the Haryana police and government for their illegal actions, the bench – headed by Justice Surya Kant – directed the setting up of a ‘Special Investigation Team’ to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used” in the Facebook post.
When the SIT’s exertions over the “complexity” of Mahmudabad’s “phraseology” failed to produce anything incriminating, it began a wider fishing expedition – looking into files stored on his computer, overseas trips he had made etc. At the request of Mahmudabad’s counsel, the court had to restrain the police from going down this route.
At the end of this pointless exercise, neither the SIT nor the Haryana police and its counsel were able to provide the court with any material to justify the filing of the two FIRs. At this point, then, the bench, which was still headed by Justice Surya Kant but in his new role as Chief Justice of India, ought to have simply quashed the case. Indeed, it might have also gone one step further and admonished the Haryana government for having abused the process of law to harass an individual for exercising his right to free speech. Instead, CJI Surya Kant suggested on January 6 that Haryana exercise its power to deny sanction to prosecute Mahmudabad – so that the case would abate. And this is what the Haryana government cleverly did on March 16. Not only did it avoid the ignominy – or worse – of an adverse ruling but it also got to walk away with its ability to abuse the law in future intact!
The Supreme Court’s order notes:
“In deference to the order dated 06.01.2026, Mr S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, who appears on behalf of the State of Haryana, very gracefully states that as a one-time measure, the State Government has decided not to grant any sanction for prosecution. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonipat, where a charge sheet has already been filed, are directed to be closed for want of prosecution sanction.”
What is the message that the Supreme Court has sent out through this absurd process?
For one, poor Mahmudabad has been treated as if he actually did something wrong whereas neither the SIT nor the prosecution has been able to establish any such thing. Worse, CJI Surya Kant made observations in open court that attacked the professor without cause or process. During the January 6 hearing, the CJI said, “ We also don’t want him to become….the moment we say, we are closing…then he will say that now I will start writing any damn thing …he also has to act in a very responsible manner….if they (state) shows magnanimity, we should also be equally responsible.” This gratuitous observation finds expression in the court’s final order, which notes, “We have no reason to doubt that the petitioner, who is a highly learned professor and domain expert, will be over-cautious and act in a prudent manner in future.”
More dangerously, thanks to the Supreme Court’s “magnanimity”, police departments and state governments across India can continue to abuse the law by filing false and malicious cases against critics of the establishment, confident that should their abuse ever be brought before a judge they can wriggle out of legal responsibility by agreeing at the stage to drop charges.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.