‘You don’t need him, you need a dictionary!’ SC pulls up SIT probing Ashoka professor's post on Operation Sindoor

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Haryana Special Investigation Team (SIT) for allegedly overreaching its mandate in the probe against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, saying it appeared to have “misdirected itself”.

A bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, clarified that the SIT was expected to focus solely on the contents of two FIRs filed against Mahmudabad over his social media posts related to Operation Sindoor. "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 observed, questioning the seizure of the professor’s electronic devices and travel history over the last decade.

The court made it clear that the professor, who has been cooperating with the probe, should not be summoned again. The SIT has been directed to submit its report within four weeks. It also noted there was no justification for summoning Mahmudabad repeatedly, adding, “It seems to us that it is not needed to summon the petitioner again to join the investigation.”

In a sharp rebuke to the state counsel, Justice Kant remarked, “You do not need him, you need a dictionary!”—referring to the alleged misinterpretation of the language used in Mahmudabad’s posts.

Mahmudabad, head of the Political Science Department at Ashoka University, was arrested on May 18 by Haryana Police after two FIRs were lodged in Sonipat district—one based on a complaint by the Haryana State Commission for Women chairperson Renu Bhatia and another by a local sarpanch. The complaints accused him of promoting enmity, public mischief and insulting the modesty of women through his remarks.

The social media post in question commented on the government’s decision to highlight Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh’s role in Operation Sindoor, India’s counterstrike following the Pahalgam terror attack. Mahmudabad had written:

“…but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP's hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it's just hypocrisy.”

The post triggered a backlash, with the National Commission for Women alleging it disparaged women in uniform and undermined their role. Mahmudabad, however, maintained that his comments were misunderstood. “...I am surprised that the Women's Commission, while overreaching its jurisdiction, has misread and misunderstood my posts to such an extent that they have inverted their meaning,” he responded.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, told the court that the SIT went beyond the FIRs and questioned the professor about his past decade of travel—an angle the court deemed irrelevant.

The Supreme Court had earlier granted Mahmudabad interim bail on May 21. However, it did not stay the investigation. On May 28, the court had ruled that while there was no bar on his right to free expression, he must refrain from writing or commenting on the case or issues related to Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack. On Wednesday, this restriction was partially eased. "We state that petitioner is free to write any online posts or articles except commenting on the subjudice matter. Interim orders against petitioner to continue," the court stated.

The bench emphasised that the purpose of constituting the SIT was to ensure a nuanced understanding of the expressions used in the posts—not to embark on a fishing expedition.

Several academics and opposition leaders have condemned Mahmudabad's arrest, calling it a threat to academic freedom and free speech.