Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a Political Science Professor, who published a post on Facebook concerning Operation Sindoor—a military operation in response to a terrorist attack in Kashmir, India.  The case arose when Professor Mahmudabad published a Facebook post analyzing Operation Sindoor, which led to complaints alleging anti-national and communal remarks. He approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the complaints and his release. The Court granted interim bail, reasoning that no prima facie criminal intent was evident, and directed a Special Investigation Team to further investigate the matter, while imposing conditions on Professor Mahmudabad, such as refraining from posting on the matter and surrendering his passport.

Note: The case is still pending for final adjudication. Once a final decision is reached, this post will be updated with new information.

Facts

On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack carried out by a Pakistan-based terrorist group in the Kashmir Valley claimed the lives of approximately 26 Indian and non-Indian tourists. In response, the Government of India launched Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory military action targeting specific militant elements in the Pakistan region. The terrorist attack and the operation initiated a lot of debate. 

On May 8, 2025, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a Political Science Professor based in India, wrote a post on Facebook about Operation Sindoor. Professor Mahmudabad wrote:

Strategically India has actually begun a new phase in terms of collapsing distinction between military and terrorist (non-state actors) in Pakistan. In effect the response to any terrorist activity will invite a conventional response and so this puts the onus on the Pakistani military to make sure that it cannot hide any longer behind terrorists and non-state actors. In any case the Pak military has used militarised non-state actors to destabilise the region for far too long while also claiming to be victims on the international stage. It has also used the same actors- some of whom were targeted in the recent strikes- to foment sectarian tension in Pakistan. Operation Sindoor resets all received notions of Indo-Pak relationships as the response to terrorist attacks will be met with a military response and removes any semantic distinction between the two. Despite this collapse, care has been taken by the Indian armed forces to not target military or civilian installations or infrastructure so that there is no unnecessary escalation. The message is clear: if you don’t deal with your terrorism problem then we will! The loss of civilian life is tragic on both sides and is the main reason why war should be avoided. There are those who are mindlessly advocating for a war but they have never seen one let alone lived in or visited a conflict zone. Being part of a mock civil defense drill does not make you a solider and neither will you ever know the pain of someone who suffers losses because of conflict. War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies. While war is inevitable because politics is primarily rooted in violence – at least human history teaches us this- we have to realise that political conflicts have never been solved militarily. Lastly, 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 importantly but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy. When a prominent Muslim politicians (sic) said ‘Pakistan Murdabad’ and was trolled by Pakistanis for doing so- Indian right wing commentators defended him by saying ‘he is our mulla.’ Of course this is funny but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the indian body politic.

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 it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.

Jai Hind! (Indian Flag Emojiicon). 

The post received a lot of appreciation and criticism. On May 17, 2025, Yogesh Jatheri, a sarpanch (Head of village) from Haryana and a general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Professor Mahmudabad, alleging that he made anti-national and communal remarks following India’s military action against Pakistan on May 6, 2025. The complainant claimed that the professor undermined national unity and incited religious sentiments during a sensitive time, and demanded strict legal action against him. Similarly, another FIR was filed by the Haryana State Commission for Women with the same allegations that Professor Mahmudabad made anti-national and communal remarks

On May 18, 2025, Professor Mahmudabad was arrested by the police and was produced before a Magistrate, who rejected the State Police’s request for his 7-day custody. The Magistrate remanded the professor to police custody for two days. 

Aggrieved, Professor Mahmudabad filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of both the FIRs and immediate release from judicial custody.

On May 21, 2025, the National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognisance of a media report regarding Professor Mahmudabad’s situation. In a press release, the Commission stated that a gist of the allegations on which Professor Mahmudabad was arrested disclosed that, prima facie, his human rights and liberty were violated.

Decision Overview

On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an order on whether Professor Mahmudabad should be granted bail or not. Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotishwar Singh heard the Writ Petition. 

Professor Mahmudabad, through his lawyer, contended that his post was “highly patriotic,” as it lauds the Indian Armed Forces for not targeting “military or civilian installations or infrastructure” and for ensuring that there was “no unnecessary escalation.” He argued that he condemned the “mindless” advocacy for war by some, pointing out that it is “the poor who suffer disproportionately.” Professor Mahmudabad concluded his submission by asking, “Where is the criminal intent?”—as the impugned post ends with the expression “Jai Hind (Long live India)”

The Court, in its interim order, held that “no case for staying the investigation [was] made out.” However, in order to understand the complexity of the phraseology employed, and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts, it directed the Director General of Police of Haryana to constitute an Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprised of three directly recruited Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, who do not belong to the States of Haryana or Delhi, which shall be headed by an officer at least in the rank of Inspector General of Police. The remaining two members should be officers in the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. One of the members of the SIT should be a woman IPS Officer. 

The Court held that to facilitate the investigation, Professor Mahmudabad should be released on interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds. It considered that in addition to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate: (i) the petitioner shall not write any online post, article, or shall not make any oral speech related to the contested expressions matter of the investigation; (ii) the petitioner should also refrain from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by the Indian armed forces. Furthermore, (iii) the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat and; (iv) the Director General of Police was directed to constitute the SIT within 24 hours. 

The Court made it clear that one of the objectives of granting interim bail was to facilitate the ongoing investigation. If the SIT/Investigating Agency finds any other incriminating material against Professor Mahmudabad, it shall be at liberty to place it on record and seek modification of the interim order, the Court said.

The case is listed on October 27, 2025, for the next hearing.