New Delhi, Oct 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned till November 18 the hearing of a plea filed by Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who sought the release of his passport surrendered as a bail condition in connection with FIRs registered by the Haryana Police over his social media posts related to ‘Operation Sindoor’.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Appearing for Mahmudabad, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal urged the Court to direct the authorities to return his passport, saying, “ I don’t know why the passport is kept.”
Responding to this, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the State of Haryana, said that the passport had been surrendered as part of the bail conditions, but the authorities would not object to Mahmudabad’s travel abroad if he provided his travel itinerary.
Sibal retorted, “If you are not going to object, then give the passport back.”
Indicating that the matter would be heard on a non-miscellaneous day, Justice Kant remarked to Sibal, “You are not going tomorrow itself.”
Earlier, on May 21, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Mahmudabad while directing the Haryana Director General of Police (DGP) to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine the “complexity of phraseology” used in his online posts.
On August 25, the Haryana Police informed the Court that it had filed a closure report in one FIR and a chargesheet in another.
Taking note, the Court quashed the FIR in which a closure report had been filed and restrained the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the chargesheet in the other case.
During earlier hearings, Sibal had questioned the invocation of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a substitute for the repealed sedition law, arguing that its constitutionality was still under judicial scrutiny.
Mahmudabad faces allegations under Sections 196, 152, and other provisions of the BNS, about acts prejudicial to communal harmony, endangering national sovereignty, and making statements likely to cause disharmony. He was arrested on May 18 and remained in custody until his interim bail was granted three days later.
As part of his bail conditions, the Supreme Court had directed Mahmudabad to surrender his passport, refrain from commenting on the social media posts that led to the case, and cooperate with the SIT probe. The Court also barred the Haryana government from registering further FIRs on the same issue and clarified that the SIT’s probe must remain confined to the two FIRs already filed.
Earlier, the Bench had expressed concern that the SIT appeared to be exceeding its mandate by questioning Mahmudabad about his foreign trips and seizing his devices. Observing that the SIT should focus only on the two social media posts, Justice Kant had remarked, “You don’t require him, you require a dictionary.”
The Court had also asked the Haryana government to respond to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s cognizance of the case, which questioned the manner in which the FIR was registered.
The matter will now be taken up again on November 18.
