Latest news with #AliKhanMahmudabad
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Suhas Palshikar writes: Left Wing Extremism is a smokescreen. Maharashtra's new law could criminalise dissent
What you require is a dictionary, the Supreme Court is reported to have told the SIT in the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case recently. Very soon, the courts may have to say, what you need is a set of Political Science books. The need to read Political Science literature may be necessitated by the mention of Left Wing Extremism (LWE) in a bill passed by the Maharashtra legislature in the name of protecting public security. Indeed, there is a separate section under the Ministry of Home Affairs that deals with LWE but one is not sure that there is a clear legal definition of LWE. The MHA portal says that LWE refers to organisations that are banned and listed as an appendix to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. But that hardly satisfies the test of what conceptually constitutes LWE. Broad innuendos making the rounds in the public domain refer to Maoism. In operational terms, the provisions refer to the use of violence for the overthrow of the state. But since the Maharashtra government now intends to incriminate Left Wing ideology, the onus is on the government to specify what it means by it. In the absence of clarity, anyone can be accused of subscribing to Left Wing ideology, and then the police will be running from one library to another for material on what constitutes Left Wing ideas. The current dispensation in Maharashtra and nationally is allergic to the idea of the 'Left'. Therefore, it will do well to come forward and define for legal purposes which ideas are construed as Left and are hence liable to be proscribed. Maoist violence in many parts of the country has invited a reaction of repulsion even among those who may have a leftward leaning. That repulsion is tactically utilised intellectually and cinematically by some who employ the term 'urban Naxal'. Even the Maharashtra Chief Minister has repeatedly referred to urban Maoism. What is overlooked is the distinction between those who actively mobilise Maoist violence against the state, those who sympathise with such organisations and those who do not endorse such violence but subscribe to the idea that the stranglehold of capital over state authority needs to be removed. The other problem with the Maharashtra law is that it incriminates a number of activities that are already proscribed by various laws and thus there is a vicious duplication of legal instruments giving the executive and the police unseemly discretionary powers on whether to book someone under this law, under UAPA or a more routine law penalising crime and violence. We regularly witness instances of how executive discretion results in overenthusiasm and even partisan vendetta. The new law will be an additional instrument to harass civil society. Given that it precludes the bail provision and recourse to lower courts, one can only imagine its likely draconian effects. Perhaps the most worrisome provisions in this law pertain to freedom of speech and expression. True, we routinely get a dose of pontification from the judiciary that freedom — and freedom of expression, in particular — is not absolute. It is nobody's case that in the Indian context, this freedom is absolute or without constraints. But the central question that law-makers and the judiciary must answer is not whether freedom of expression is or should be absolute. The question is whether restraints on freedom of expression can be random and arbitrary. Scholars of the Indian Constitution have argued that writing down the restrictions on the freedom of expression produces a concrete limiting effect on the executive and legislature. The written restrictions guarantee that governments or state authorities will not have unlimited powers to curb the freedom of expression. Also, the constitutional scheme of things requires the test of reasonableness. Restrictions have to be reasonable. Courts are therefore not to tell a citizen what she should reasonably express but to examine if the enforced limitations are reasonable. In the backdrop of the judiciary's abdication of this sacrosanct duty, the provisions in Maharashtra's bill could be dangerous and ill-intended. Under this new law, 'unlawful' activities are defined as activities 'by act or words… or by sign or by visible representation'. In other words, freedom of expression, besides actual acts, is intended to be criminalised. As a member of the legislature publicly stated after the passage of the bill, holding seminars (purportedly on objectionable matters, in that lawmaker's view) will be punished by the new law. Therein exists a dual danger. One, any dog-whistling can easily activate the police machinery, and there is no mechanism to first examine such random complaints emanating from ideological or political rivals before action is taken; the Advisory Board comes into the picture only after action is taken by the police. Two, any intellectual activity can easily be brought under the purview of unlawful activity. What constitutes incitement to violence will always be a ticklish issue legally, morally and politically. For the sake of argument, let us admit that 'incitement' may be legitimately criminalised. In that case, incitement against minorities — indulged in even by some members of the state government — should also be criminalised. But since such perpetrators are not Left Wing, this law would turn a blind eye towards that incitement. As the new law says, any acts through words that 'constitute danger to peace and tranquility', 'acts of generating fear and apprehension in the public', 'preaching disobedience of law and its institutions' are construed as unlawful. A plain reading of these phrases should alert any citizen. Because, while the law mentions LWE, these political acts are the common language of democratic mobilisation and as such practically any social worker can be booked for extending a verbal criticism of authorities and appealing to citizens to protest. Any stringent criticism can be construed as endangering tranquility. Thus, the language of 'urban Naxal' is a smokescreen. The tameness and intellectual laziness of the Opposition in Maharashtra is such that it is content with limiting the powers under this law to LWE. In its abject muteness, the Opposition in Maharashtra has shown that it is following in the footsteps of the loyal Opposition in Gujarat. Following legislation in Chhattisgarh, Odisha etc, this law raises wider issues beyond being Left or non-Left. It is about the idea of the state and protests: Whether the state can be critiqued in a democracy and whether a self-proclaimed democratic state should be criminalising protest, dissent and difference of opinion. The writer, based in Pune, taught Political Science
Economic Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
SC asks SIT to confine itself to probe related to professor's Facebook post
The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the special investigation team (SIT), set up to examine Facebook posts of Ashoka University assistant professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad on Operation Sindoor, on "misdirecting itself".A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi verbally observed that SIT was "unnecessarily expanding the scope" of its probe. The bench reiterated that the SIT must confine its investigation to the two first information reports already filed against Mahmudabad for his two "objectionable" Facebook posts. "Why is SIT on the face of it misdirecting itself? They can say that the article (by Mahmudabad) is an opinion and does not constitute an offence or otherwise!" Justice Kant verbally remarked. SC also turned down a request made by the counsel for SIT for giving it two months 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," the bench orally remarked. The bench directed the SIT to not summon Mahmudabad again for questioning, after noting that he had already joined the investigation earlier and that certain electronic devices owned by him were also examined. The SC also ordered the SIT to finish its probe in four weeks, making it clear that its investigation must be strictly limited to the language and content of the two Facebook posts uploaded by Mahmudabad on the Pahalgam terror attack. Interim protection from arrest that was granted to Mahmudabad will also continue, the SC added.
Time of India
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC asks SIT to confine itself to probe related to professor's Facebook post
The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the special investigation team ( SIT ), set up to examine Facebook posts of Ashoka University assistant professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad on Operation Sindoor , on "misdirecting itself". A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi verbally observed that SIT was "unnecessarily expanding the scope" of its probe. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Cybersecurity Data Science PGDM Design Thinking Technology Others Data Analytics Public Policy Degree MBA Finance healthcare Healthcare Project Management MCA Product Management Digital Marketing CXO Artificial Intelligence Data Science Management others Leadership Operations Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months MIT xPRO CERT-MIT xPRO PGC in Cybersecurity Starts on undefined Get Details The bench reiterated that the SIT must confine its investigation to the two first information reports already filed against Mahmudabad for his two "objectionable" Facebook posts. "Why is SIT on the face of it misdirecting itself? They can say that the article (by Mahmudabad) is an opinion and does not constitute an offence or otherwise!" Justice Kant verbally remarked. SC also turned down a request made by the counsel for SIT for giving it two months 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," the bench orally remarked. The bench directed the SIT to not summon Mahmudabad again for questioning, after noting that he had already joined the investigation earlier and that certain electronic devices owned by him were also examined. The SC also ordered the SIT to finish its probe in four weeks, making it clear that its investigation must be strictly limited to the language and content of the two Facebook posts uploaded by Mahmudabad on the Pahalgam terror attack . Interim protection from arrest that was granted to Mahmudabad will also continue, the SC added.
Hindustan Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘You need a dictionary': SC to probe team as Ashoka prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad gets relief
The Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that the probe team looking into two social media by professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was apparently 'misdirecting itself'. It added that since Mahmudabad had cooperated with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and surrendered his devices, he need not be summoned again. Ashoka University associate professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad has said his comments on Operation Sindoor were misunderstood.(X/HT File) "You don't require him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary," Justice Surya Kant said, according to news agency ANI. Mahmudabad, associate professor and head of the political science department at Ashoka University in Haryana's Sonipat, got interim bail on May 21 after his arrest by the state police on May 18 over two Facebook posts related to Operation Sindoor. On Wednesday, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi set a four-week deadline for the investigation team, which the SC had formed to probe the two social media posts. The court also explained that its bail conditions allowed the professor to write articles and opinions online, except on matters that are sub judice. From the SIT, it enquired why it was expanding its scope beyond the two posts, though, and why it needed his gadgets at all. "We are asking why the SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts," Justice Kant told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing the state. 'Why take gadgets, ask about foreign trips?' The court's remarks came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, told the bench that the SIT had not only seized his devices but was questioning him over his foreign trips of the last 10 years. He has been summoned four times by the SIT, Sibal said. Sibal said that by its May 28 order, the top court had directed the SIT to confine its probe to the contents of the social media posts. The bench thus noted that Mahmudabad has cooperated with the investigation and surrendered his devices; therefore, he should not be summoned again. Mahmudabad is charged with, among other things, endangering India's sovereignty, unity and integrity for his comments on Operation Sindoor. The State Women's Commission had earlier termed Mahmudabad's social media comments as disparaging toward women officers in the Indian Armed Forces and said it also promoted communal disharmony. Mahmudabad clarified that his comments had been completely misunderstood.
Scroll.in
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: SC limits SIT probe to Ashoka professor's posts, stay on ‘Udaipur Files' upheld and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Supreme Court told the Haryana Police's Special Investigation Team that its probe should be limited to the two social media posts made by Ashoka University Associate Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad about the press briefings on Operation Sindoor. The investigation team only 'requires a dictionary' and not further custody of Mahmudabad, said the bench. This came after Mahmudabad's counsel told the bench that the SIT had gone against the court's previous order and seized his electronic devices, in addition to questioning him about trips he had made abroad in the last 10 years. The court directed the police to complete their probe within four weeks. It also clarified that the bail conditions on Mahmudabad only restrain him from commenting publicly about the matter, not other topics. Read on. The Supreme Court refused to lift the stay on the release of the film Udaipur Files, which is reportedly based on the 2022 killing of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal. On June 10, the Delhi High Court stayed the film's release and directed the Union government to examine its contents. On Wednesday, the court said that it expects the Union government to take its decision 'immediately, without loss of time' and listed the matter for further hearing on July 21. In June 2022, Lal was killed for purportedly sharing a social media post in support of suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. She had made disparaging remarks about Prophet Muhammad during a television debate in May 2022. The High Court's stay on the release came on a batch of petitions that had alleged the film was communally provocative and vilified the Muslim community. Read on. North Atlantic Treaty Organization chief Mark Rutte has warned that countries such as India, China and Brazil could face secondary sanctions if they continue to trade with Russia amid its war on Ukraine. 'So please make the phone call to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India and on China in a massive way,' Rutte added. NATO is a military alliance of 32 countries, including the United States and several members of the European Union. India and China are among the countries whose imports of cheaper fuel from Russia have increased since 2022. This has raised concerns in Washington that high volume purchases are undermining the attempts to squeeze the Russian economy and thus, indirectly, helping finance its military operations in Ukraine. Read on. Two suspected Maoists have been killed in a gunfight with security forces in Jharkhand's Bokaro district. Central Reserve Police Force member Parneswar Koch was also killed in the exchange of fire. The gunfight between the suspected Maoists and the security forces took place at about 5.30 am in the Birhordera forest in the Gomia police station area. This year, 21 suspected Maoists have been killed across Jharkhand in 14 gunfights with security forces. The Union government has repeatedly vowed to end Maoism by March 31, 2026. Read on.
