Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Seeks Return of Surrendered Passport
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University appeared before the Supreme Court seeking the return of his passport, which he had surrendered under his bail conditions. The matter was before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The case was initiated by FIRs being filed by the Haryana Police, relating to a series of social media posts by Professor Mahmudabad referencing “Operation Sindoor.”
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, urged the Court to direct the immediate release of the passport, arguing that the investigation had made sufficient progress and no risk of flight or interference existed.
The State of Haryana was represented by the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who informed the Court that the passport was retained in accordance with the bail order, but they have no objection regarding his foreign travels if he gives his itinerary.
The bench adjourned the hearings till November 18, 2025.
Background: FIRs Over Social Media Posts on “Operation Sindoor”
The case arises from FIRs filed against Professor Mahmudabad by the Haryana Police under multiple provisions of the law including sections 196 and 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaints allege that his social media posts related to “Operation Sindoor” contained comments that could disturb communal harmony and endanger national sovereignty. He was arrested on May 18 and released on interim bail on May 21. After his arrest and subsequent release on interim bail, the Court imposed several restrictions while allowing the investigation to continue under judicial oversight.
Conditions of Bail and Direction for Special Investigation Team
When interim bail was granted, the Court imposed several conditions: the professor was to surrender his passport, cooperate with investigations, and refrain from posting on the subject matter of the case. The Apex Court also directed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be constituted to examine the posts and language used therein.
Investigation Status and Scope Restrictions
The State informed the Court that one FIR had a closure report filed, and a chargesheet had been submitted in another. The Court quashed the FIR where the closure report was filed and stayed cognisance of the other chargesheet.
The bench emphasised that the SIT’s scope must remain limited to the two FIRs and respective posts, and not broaden into unrelated inquiries.
Constitutionality of the provision
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, objected to the Haryana Police’s use of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (which replaces the old sedition law), noting that its constitutional validity was still under consideration by the Court.
Judicial Directions and Next Hearing
Although the defence sought relaxation of the bail conditions earlier imposed on the professor, the Court held that a cooling-off period was necessary before considering any modification and advised counsel to renew the request at the next hearing.
Observing that the petitioner had fully cooperated with the investigation and surrendered all electronic devices, the Court directed that he should not be summoned again for questioning. The Bench also instructed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to complete its inquiry within four weeks.
The next hearing is scheduled for November 18.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD @ ALI KHAN MAHMUDABAD Versus STATE OF HARYANA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 219/2025
