SC Stops Sedition Trial Against Ashoka Professor!
Supreme Court pauses trial against Ashoka professor over sedition charges in social media case.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a significant order restraining the trial court from taking cognizance of a chargesheet filed by the Haryana Special Investigation Team (SIT) against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who faces allegations related to contentious social media posts on Operation Sindoor. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, also barred the trial court from framing charges in the case, marking a pivotal development in a legal saga that has sparked widespread debate.
Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, 2025, following two First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the Rai police in Sonipat, Haryana, based on complaints from Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and a village sarpanch. The FIRs accused him of offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 152 (acts endangering India’s sovereignty and integrity), Section 353 (statements causing public mischief), Section 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman), and Section 196(1) (promoting enmity between religious groups). The allegations stem from posts deemed to undermine national security, prompting condemnation from political parties and academicians who viewed the arrest as an attack on free speech.
The Haryana SIT, constituted by the Supreme Court to investigate the FIRs, informed the bench that it had filed a closure report in one case but submitted a chargesheet on August 22 in the other, citing evidence of offenses. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing Haryana Police, defended the chargesheet, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, called its filing “most unfortunate,” arguing that it included Section 152 (sedition), the validity of which is under judicial scrutiny. Sibal criticized the SIT for exceeding the scope of the FIRs, accusing authorities of “persecuting people in the country.”
Also Read: Black Death Returns? Bubonic Plague Case Confirmed in California!
The Supreme Court, which had earlier relaxed Mahmudabad’s bail conditions on May 28, allowing him to express opinions except on the sub-judice case, quashed proceedings related to the FIR with the closure report. The bench directed Sibal to prepare a chart detailing the alleged offenses in the chargesheet for review at the next hearing. The court’s prior interventions, including granting interim bail on May 21 and limiting the SIT’s investigation to the two FIRs, reflect its efforts to balance free speech with legal accountability.
The case, which began with Mahmudabad’s arrest in May, has drawn attention for its implications on academic freedom and the right to expression. The Supreme Court’s July 16 observation that the SIT had “misdirected itself” by seeking devices beyond the FIRs’ scope underscored concerns about overreach. As the legal battle continues, with potential appeals looming, the case highlights the tension between national security concerns and individual liberties in India’s evolving legal landscape.
Also Read: India’s Bold Climate Win: Clean Energy Goal Achieved 5 Years Early!
