"You need a dictionary!" Supreme Court objects to SIT expanding probe in case on FB post by Ali Khan Mahmudabad

The Supreme Court on Wednesday again criticised the special investigation team (SIT) set up to examine Facebook posts by Assistant Professor of Ashoka University Ali Khan Mahmudabad on Operation Sindoor [Mohammad Amir Ahmad @ Ali Khan Mahmudabad Versus State Of Haryana].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi said that the SIT was unnecessarily expanding the scope of its probe and warned that the probe agency should confine its investigation to the two first information reports (FIRs) already filed against Mahmudabad on the two Facebook posts.

"Why is the SIT on the face of it misdirecting itself? They can say that article (by Mahmudabad) is an opinion and does not constitute an offence or otherwise!" Justice Kant remarked.

The Court also rejected a request made by Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) SV Raju for two months time for the SIT to complete its probe.

"SIT can always say that there is nothing in this FIR. But we are examining other issues. Why take two months for this? Then this case can be closed."

When ASG Raju urged the Court to issue a direction today that Mahmudabad should join the SIT probe if he is required for the same in future, Justice Kant also quipped,

"You do not need him ... You need a dictionary!"

The remark was in reference to the interpretation of Mahmudabad's Facebook post, which praised Operation Sindoor and India's war against terrorism while also criticising war mongers and right wing supporters.

The interpretation of the Facebook post has been the contentious issue between Mahmudabad and the prosecution.

The Court today proceeded to hold that the SIT need not summon Mahmudabad again for questioning, after noting that he had already joined for investigation earlier and that certain electronic devices owned by him were also examined.

The Court further ordered the SIT to finish its probe in four weeks (about a month's time), adding that this investigation must be strictly limited to the language and content of the two Facebook posts uploaded by Mahmudabad on the Pahalgam terror attack and India's cross-border military response, namely Operation Sindoor.

The Court reminded the SIT that it was set up specifically to examine only these posts and whether any offence was made out from the phrasing used in them, not to launch a roving inquiry.

Interim protection from arrest that was granted to Mahmudabad will also continue, the Court added.

Moreover, the Court also again clarified that Mahmudabad is free to write articles and social media posts, except on matter that is sub judice, that is, except on topics that are pending before the Court.

"It seems to us that it is not needed to summon the petitioner again to join the investigation. With a view to clarify our order dated May 21.. we state that petitioner is free to write any online posts or articles except commenting on the sub judice matter. Interim orders against petitioner to continue," the Court's order said.

In his Facebook post, Mahmudabad had criticised Pakistan sponsored terrorism, denounced war and said that all the plaudits received by Colonel Sofiya Qureshi of the Indian Army, who had led India's press briefing, should reflect on the ground. He had also said that right wing supporters in India should speak up against mob lynching.

Two FIRs were registered against him over such remarks.

The first case was lodged based on a complaint by one Yogesh Jatheri citing the offences under Sections 196 (promoting hatred), 197 (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration), 152 (endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), and 299 (culpable homicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The second first information report (FIR) followed a complaint by Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia and included charges under Sections 353 (public mischief), 79 (insult to modesty), 152 of the BNS.

Mahmudabad was then arrested by the Haryana Police and sent to judicial custody.

Meanwhile, Mahmudabad moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest and seeking quashing of the FIRs.

When the matter was first heard on May 19, the Court had refused to stay the FIRs registered by Haryana Police but released Mahmudabad from jail on interim bail.

Pertinently, the Court also constituted an SIT to probe the matter in place of Haryana Police.

At the time, the Court also took strong exception to the language employed by Mahmudabad in his posts, saying it could have dual meanings.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Mahmudabad before the Court today, arguing that his client's statements were not offensive but were, in fact, patriotic.

"It is the most patriotic statement," Sibal said.

ASG Raju disagreed.

In response, Sibal urged the ASG to read Mahmudabad's comments himself and arrive at his own conclusions at a personal level and not through the eyes of his client, the State of Haryana.

Sibal went on to argue,

"(The SIT probe) cannot be a roving enquiry. Unfortunately, my friend (ASG SV Raju) is always on the wrong side. He is wanting to be on our side but he is not being allowed. We will persuade him outside court."

The Court eventually said that it is not going to comment on where the SIT probe is heading.

"We, however, remind the SIT of the mandate in our order dated May 28. We direct that the probe with reference to the contents of the two social media posts as early as possible but not later than 4 weeks," it added.

[Live Coverage]