E-Paper
SIT’s probe off course: SC on Ashoka prof case
The order by the court came while considering an interim report submitted by the three-member SIT headed by Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Mamta Singh seeking an additional two months’ time to submit its report.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday censured the Haryana police’s special investigation team (SIT) for the delay in the probe related to two social media posts by Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad on Operation Sindoor, extended his interim bail, and said there was no need for him to appear again before the team for questioning.
When the state objected, the court said “you do not require him; you require a dictionary”, adding that the team had made heavy weather of the task at hand, taking two months for something that could have been done in two days.
The order by the court came while considering an interim report submitted by the three-member SIT headed by Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Mamta Singh seeking an additional two months’ time to submit its report.
The bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, “Granting time is not an issue. We want to point out why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They may say after going through the two articles (posted by petitioner) that the entire article may be offensive but it does not constitute an offence.”
The court said that the purpose of forming the SIT was to examine the two posts made by Mahmudabad on May 8 and 11 for a “holistic understanding of the phraseology employed” and for proper appreciation of expressions contained in the posts and conclude whether it constitutes an offence, and if so, the penal provisions that are attracted in the case.
“The ultimate evaluation of the report is to be done by us…It is a simple question. Why they (SIT) are taking two months for an exercise that can be done in two days,” the court asked.
The court said that on May 28 it had already clarified that the SIT would limit its investigation to the two first information reports (FIR) registered against Mahmudabad. These were in relation to his two posts on May 8 and 11 in the wake of the military response by India following the gruesome Pahalgam terror attack that took the lives of 26 innocent tourists.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for Haryana told the court that while the SIT, constituted by the court, is not under the state’s control, the committee cannot be told how to probe the case. He said the committee may certainly want to examine any incriminating material on going through the electronic devices held by the petitioner.
The bench said, “If during this exercise, any incriminating material comes to the notice of SIT, law will take its own course. How will that have an impact on the present case?”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the professor said, “It is not fair to conduct a roving enquiry. He (Mahmudabad) was called four times. Even last week he appeared and they are seeking details of his travel. The articles are before them. Why do they require two more months?”
The court in its order said, “Though it may not be expedient for us to comment on the SIT or the manner it has directed itself to proceed, we deem it appropriate to remind the SIT of our May 28 order (restricting probe to the two FIRs) and direct SIT to conclude its investigation as early as possible but not later than four weeks.”
The order further clarified that since the petitioner has joined the investigation and handed over his gadgets for probe, “it may not be necessary to summon him again for joining the investigation.”
t also clarified that the “ petitioner is entitled to continue to write any online post, article or any opinion except that he should not comment on the matter which is sub-judice.”
Mahmudabad was arrested pursuant to two FIRs registered against him on May 17 and 18, including one by the Haryana State Commission for Women. His Facebook post, which praised the military’s restraint while warning against “warmongering and performative patriotism”, drew criticism on social media. The Haryana women ‘s commission chairperson Renu Bhatia complained that he had disparagIed women officers, particularly Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, who briefed the media after the cross-border strikes by India.
