By Anwarulhaq Baig
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s conditional interim bail to Ashoka University professor Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, arrested for his social media posts following “Operation Sindoor”, has triggered a storm of criticism from civil society, legal experts, human rights bodies, political leaders, and academics. While granting him relief from police custody, the bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe his “language and expressions” and imposed sweeping restrictions on his right to free speech.
The bench noted, “To holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed… the DGP, Haryana is directed to constitute an SIT.”
The court also gagged the professor from commenting, online or offline, on the subject matter of his posts or even on the terror attack and India’s military response. It further directed him to surrender his passport and cooperate with police investigations.
In contrast, the same Supreme Court bench had earlier ordered an SIT against Madhya Pradesh BJP minister Vijay Shah for his crude, communal remarks against a serving Army officer, Colonel Sofia Qureshi. But critics point out the crucial distinction: Shah’s were direct, gendered and communal insults, while Mahmudabad’s posts were a general critique of war-mongering civilians, rooted in academic and political analysis.
Legal Experts: “Draconian, Disproportionate”
Senior advocate and civil right activist Prashant Bhushan called the conditions “draconian” and said they effectively silence any academic engagement with the Indo-Pak issue:“The SC made unnecessary remarks, appearing to bat for the police. Very unfortunate. I agree with every word Prof. Mahmudabad has said—he’s done nothing wrong.”
Saurav Das, investigative journalist and legal commentator, noted the stark contrast between Justice Surya Kant’s gag order and Justice Abhay Oka’s simultaneous reminder in another case:“For ideology, you cannot put someone in jail.”
Das emphasized that Mahmudabad’s case demonstrates a slow, judicially sanctioned “choking of free thought”:“This is how a society dies, when intellectual life is suffocated to make space for conformist mediocrity.”
Political and Civil Society Voices Condemn Judicial Overreach
Dr. S.Q.R. Ilyas, WPI General Secretary and AIMPLB spokesperson, denounced the Court’s move to order an SIT into social media posts that were “neither unconstitutional nor against the country”: “Instead of ordering a police probe into speech, the judiciary should itself determine whether it falls within constitutional limits. Arresting dissenters is becoming the norm, and the judiciary seems complicit.”
TMC MP Mahua Moitra said Mahmudabad was arrested “not for a crime, but because of his identity,” and pointed to the unequal standard applied to BJP ministers.
Umaballav Rath, former MLA (INC), warned that this judgment sets a dangerous precedent: “It raises fundamental questions about the contours of free speech and academic freedom. Such subjective judicial remarks like ‘cheap popularity’ or ‘dogwhistling’ turn the court into an arbiter of acceptable discourse, not just legality.”
Media and Human Rights Reactions
India Today’s Preeti Choudhry questioned whether such judicial language marks a turning point for free speech:“The professor’s remarks were called ‘dogwhistling’. Is this what freedom of expression looks like now?”
Veteran journalist Rajdeep Sardesai remarked sarcastically:“Clearly we have a lot of unemployed cops if SITs are being formed to probe Facebook posts.”
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance, issuing a notice to Haryana’s DGP, stating that the arrest “prima facie discloses violations of liberty.”
Amnesty India called the SIT and continued investigation “unwarranted,” demanding an immediate end to harassment.
A Gag on Academic Thought
Former journalist Irena Akbar reflected on the psychological impact:
“Even if Ali gets permanent relief, the damage is done—of self-censorship. We now write poems about the state of our minds, not of affairs.”
In a powerful statement, scholar and activist Samīullah Khan wrote: “This is not relief; it is a warning wrapped in judicial robes. The Supreme Court has called his academic post a bid for ‘cheap fame’ and ordered police to assess the ‘intent’ of intellectual speech. What kind of message does that send?”
The SC’s gag order on Prof. Mahmudabad and the SIT probe into his academic expression have sparked grave concern that India’s judiciary is enabling an executive assault on dissent. Over 1,200 academics, activists, and civil society members have already issued a joint statement defending the professor’s posts and urging the judiciary to uphold freedom of expression.
What Ali Khan Wrote:
Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad Responds to Summons from Haryana Women’s Commission, Defends Anti-War Stance
In a public statement dated 14 May 2025, Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, responded to a summons issued by the Haryana State Commission for Women over his recent social media posts. He asserted that the summons were a gross misreading of his remarks and an overreach of the Commission’s jurisdiction. “There is nothing remotely misogynistic about my comments,” he stated, stressing that his posts were “about safeguarding the lives of both citizens and soldiers” and that he had praised the Indian armed forces for their restraint in the face of provocation.
Referring to his 8 May post, Prof. Mahmudabad applauded the military’s strategic shift to directly hold the Pakistani military responsible for terrorist activity, while noting that “care has been taken by the Indian armed forces to not target military or civilian installations.” He praised the symbolic importance of a press conference led by Colonel Sofia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, calling it a “fleeting glimpse… to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built.” He urged right-wing commentators to extend similar empathy to Indian Muslims facing persecution: “Perhaps they could also… demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing… be protected as Indian citizens.”
In a follow-up post on 11 May, Prof. Mahmudabad condemned civilian warmongering: “Those who sit at home and call for war are cowards because it is not their sons and daughters who have to go to battle.” Drawing from scripture and philosophy—including the Bhagavad Gita, Prophet Muhammad, and Imam Ali—he warned against the dehumanisation that fuels genocidal rhetoric: “Think about what it means when you say ‘wipe them out’… You are saying kill all the children, the elderly… innocent people who want to do exactly what you want to do: be a father, a mother, a daughter…”
Describing the notice as “a new form of censorship and harassment,” Prof. Mahmudabad affirmed his faith in constitutional protections and reserved the right to pursue legal action against those misrepresenting his views. “I have exercised my fundamental right to freedom of thought and speech in order to promote peace and harmony,” he concluded.
Ali Khan’s ancestors and background;
It is pertinent to mention here, Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s ancestor, Maharaja Sir Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan of Mahmudabad (1878–1931), played a pivotal role in shaping modern educational and political institutions in North India. He was instrumental in establishing Lucknow as the capital of the United Provinces (later Uttar Pradesh) and was a founding member of Lucknow University, donating ₹1 lakh even before its formal inception in 1920. A passionate advocate for Muslim education, he also championed the transformation of the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College into Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). As a trustee from 1906, he donated Rs.1 lakh to the college’s fund for its elevation to university status. When AMU was established in 1920, the Raja of Mahmudabad became its first Vice-Chancellor, while Sultan Jahan Begum of Bhopal—India’s first woman university chancellor—was appointed its first Chancellor.
The overarching fear is clear , when academic speech is criminalized, critical thought is the next casualty.