SC asks SIT to focus only on Mahmudabad's ‘Op Sindoor' posts; bars further summons

United News of India

13 hours ago

New Delhi, July 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today questioned the Haryana Police Special Investigation Team (SIT) for allegedly misdirecting itself in the probe against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his two social media posts on 'Operation Sindoor'.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the SIT was formed specifically to investigate the contents of the two posts and asked why it was expanding the scope of inquiry.
The observation came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, submitted that the SIT had seized his devices and was asking about his foreign trips over the last ten years, despite the court's May 28 order limiting the probe to the posts.
'We just want to know from SIT for what purpose they have seized devices. We will call them (officers),' Justice Kant said, adding, 'we are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine contents of the posts.'
ASG SV Raju, appearing for Haryana, submitted that the manner of investigation was the prerogative of the investigating officer and all incriminating aspects had to be examined.
Sibal countered that there could not be a 'roving inquiry' and added that Mahmudabad had already been summoned four times.
Taking note of the SIT's interim report acknowledging the seizure of devices and their forensic examination, the court recorded that Mahmudabad had cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices.
Directing that he should not be summoned again, Justice Kant remarked, 'You don't require him, you require a dictionary.'
The bench dictated its order stating, 'Though it may not be expedient or desirable for us to comment on the manner in which SIT has proceeded, we deem it necessary to remind it of the mandate contained in our order dated May 28 and consequently direct the SIT to conclude its investigation with reference to the contents of the two social media posts as early as possible but not later than four weeks.'
The court also clarified that Mahmudabad, while restrained from commenting on sub judice issues, was free to write or express opinions on other topics.
On May 21, the court had granted interim bail to Mahmudabad and directed the Haryana DGP to constitute an SIT comprising senior IPS officers not belonging to Haryana or Delhi to examine his two posts. It had clarified that the SIT probe would remain confined to these two FIRs and could not be expanded.
During the hearing today, the court also asked the Haryana government about its response to the National Human Rights Commission taking cognizance of the registration of FIRs in the case. 'You tell us about that also,' Justice Kant told the Haryana AAG.
Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 over his posts on 'Operation Sindoor' and remained in custody until May 21. He faces charges under Section 196, 152, and other provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to acts prejudicial to communal harmony, making assertions likely to cause disharmony, acts endangering national sovereignty, and words or gestures intended to insult a woman's modesty.
UNI SNG PRS