The Crossbill Team
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 28, limited the scope of the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) inquiry into Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s social media posts, directing that the probe must be confined strictly to the contents of the two FIRs already registered against him.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta clarified that the SIT, constituted while granting interim bail to Mahmudabad, must not expand its remit beyond the subject matter of the two complaints.
According to Live Law, the bench state, “We direct that investigation of SIT shall be confined to contents of the two FIRs subject matter of these proceedings. The investigation report, before it is filed before jurisdictional court, be produced before this court. The interim protection to continue till further orders.”
The court’s directive followed concerns raised by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, who argued that the SIT could overstep its mandate.
In response, the bench ordered that the SIT’s final report be presented before the Supreme Court before submission to the jurisdictional court. The interim protection from arrest granted to Mahmudabad will continue until further orders.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the necessity of accessing Mahmudabad’s digital devices, with Justice Kant warning the Haryana government’s legal counsel not to broaden the investigation.
“Both FIRs are matter of record. What is the need for devices? Don’t try to expand the scope. SIT is free to form opinion. Don’t go left and right,” Justice Kant said.
The court’s earlier order on May 21 had ambiguously stated that the SIT would be allowed to seek a modification of the interim order if it found “any other incriminating material.” That clause sparked concern that the investigation could exceed its original parameters.
Justice Kant, who had previously imposed conditions on Mahmudabad’s interim bail — including a temporary bar on public comments related to the case — reiterated that these restrictions were aimed at providing a “cooling-off period.”
On Tuesday, the court clarified that Mahmudabad remains free to write and speak publicly on topics unrelated to the ongoing case, stressing that there should be no “parallel media trial.”
The bench also addressed recent developments, asking the Haryana government to respond to the National Human Rights Commission’s intervention into the manner in which Mahmudabad was arrested. Justice Kant’s bench had previously made controversial remarks warning against collective actions by students and faculty, ostensibly referring to members of Ashoka University, cautioning that “we know how to deal with these people.”
Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 by Haryana Police on charges including sedition and hurting religious sentiments, based on his social media posts critical of public rhetoric surrounding India’s Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.
Two FIRs were filed — one by a BJP functionary and another by the Haryana State Commission for Women, days after its chairperson summoned the professor over his comments.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta clarified that the SIT, constituted while granting interim bail to Mahmudabad, must not expand its remit beyond the subject matter of the two complaints.
According to Live Law, the bench state, “We direct that investigation of SIT shall be confined to contents of the two FIRs subject matter of these proceedings. The investigation report, before it is filed before jurisdictional court, be produced before this court. The interim protection to continue till further orders.”
The court’s directive followed concerns raised by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, who argued that the SIT could overstep its mandate.
In response, the bench ordered that the SIT’s final report be presented before the Supreme Court before submission to the jurisdictional court. The interim protection from arrest granted to Mahmudabad will continue until further orders.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the necessity of accessing Mahmudabad’s digital devices, with Justice Kant warning the Haryana government’s legal counsel not to broaden the investigation.
“Both FIRs are matter of record. What is the need for devices? Don’t try to expand the scope. SIT is free to form opinion. Don’t go left and right,” Justice Kant said.
The court’s earlier order on May 21 had ambiguously stated that the SIT would be allowed to seek a modification of the interim order if it found “any other incriminating material.” That clause sparked concern that the investigation could exceed its original parameters.
Justice Kant, who had previously imposed conditions on Mahmudabad’s interim bail — including a temporary bar on public comments related to the case — reiterated that these restrictions were aimed at providing a “cooling-off period.”
On Tuesday, the court clarified that Mahmudabad remains free to write and speak publicly on topics unrelated to the ongoing case, stressing that there should be no “parallel media trial.”
The bench also addressed recent developments, asking the Haryana government to respond to the National Human Rights Commission’s intervention into the manner in which Mahmudabad was arrested. Justice Kant’s bench had previously made controversial remarks warning against collective actions by students and faculty, ostensibly referring to members of Ashoka University, cautioning that “we know how to deal with these people.”
Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 by Haryana Police on charges including sedition and hurting religious sentiments, based on his social media posts critical of public rhetoric surrounding India’s Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.
Two FIRs were filed — one by a BJP functionary and another by the Haryana State Commission for Women, days after its chairperson summoned the professor over his comments.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment