Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the bail plea of Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad on Wednesday, July 16 made scathing remarks against the SIT, saying that “they need a dictionary,” and not the academician in person for the inquiry anymore. The court noted that since the petitioner has handed over his gadgets, he should not be summoned further, thereby granting him interim protection against arrest.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi further ordered the SIT to complete their investigation within four weeks.
The judges also made it clear that Mahmudabad can continue to write any online post or article or express his opinions, except for making comments on sub judice matters.
The bench emphasised that the SIT must limit its investigation solely to whether the Facebook posts written by Mahmudabad constituted an offence. The court also noted that the investigation is not going in the right direction.
“We do not want to intervene in the investigation, but it should be in the right direction. There are two posts/articles, on the basis of which two FIRs were registered. We did not want to assume the role of investigating. That’s why we asked the SIT to examine the language of posts. To say [in] which line or paragraph an offence is made,” Justice Surya Kant said, according to Live Law.
According to Bar and Bench, the court asked why the SIT is “on the face of it misdirecting itself”. The bench observed, “They can say that the article is an opinion and does not constitute an offence or otherwise.”
Arguing for Mahmudabad, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that a “roving enquiry” has been made of the case.
The court said that the SIT need not summon Mahmudabad again to join the investigation. When the state’s counsel asked if Mahmudabad may be required to join the probe, the court said, “you do not need him, you need a dictionary.”
Two cases are registered against Mahmudabad – one filed by Haryana State Commission for Women Renu Bhatia and the other by Yogesh Jatheri, a BJP youth leader.
In his Facebook post, while addressing the optics of the Indian government’s choice of making two women from different religions — Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh — address the briefings pertaining to Operation Sindoor, he pointed out the “hypocrisy” of the right-wing when Muslims are subjected to mob lynchings and arbitrary bulldozing.
“...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,” Mahamudabad wrote.
However, the Haryana State Commission for Women accused him of “vilifying” the Indian Army and “outraging the modesty of women in uniform”. At the time, the Commission’s Chairperson Renu Bhatia claimed that Mahmudabad’s remarks disrespected women officers by questioning the sincerity of their representation in national institutions.