SC relaxes Ashoka Prof's bail conditions, grills SIT

Hans India

17-07-2025

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned Haryana SIT's line of investigation in the case of Ashoka University professor booked for social media posts on Operation Sindoor saying 'it misdi-rected itself'. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the Haryana SIT headed by a senior police officer to only confine itself to the two FIRs against Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his contentious so-cial media posts and see if there was an offence and submit its report in four weeks.
'We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,' Justice Kant said.
The bench said though it did not want to interfere or intervene with the investigation, it questioned the seizure of the cell phones and other electronic gadgets.
'It is open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs does not disclose any offence, this case can be closed. It can always say that during the course of investigation, they have come across certain incriminating materials, which constitute separate offences and the law will take its own course,' the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the SIT.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, submitted despite the court directing the SIT to focus on the contents of the FIR, it carried out a 'roving inquiry' and sent the gadgets seized from the professor to forensic laboratory for examination.
He referred to the interim status report of the SIT saying it had received the forensic lab report of the gadgets and two more months were required for its examination.
Raju said the investigation was SIT's prerogative and the accused couldn't dictate terms of the probe. 'All you had to do was examine the posts, whether the expression, words or terminology constitute any offences alleged in the FIR. For that you do not need him, or a dictionary or his gadgets. We want to know for what purposes, these gadgets were seized?' the bench asked Raju.
Justice Kant said if Raju was unable to answer the question it would call the head of the SIT and tell him about the line of investigation.
Sibal said the posts were very patriotic statements and anyone looking at it would give the same view.
Raju argued to see if there was an offence, devices had to be examined to see if there was more than just social media posts.
'We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,' the bench reiterated.