The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, who was arrested over a controversial social media post referencing Operation Sindoor. But even as the academic walked out on strict conditions, legal observers and civil rights advocates are questioning the imbalance in treatment—particularly in light of a similar controversy involving a state minister, who remains free despite judicial rebuke.
Professor Mahmudabad, a respected scholar and Head of the Department of Political Science at Ashoka University, was arrested last week for his social media remarks on Operation Sindoor, which the authorities interpreted as promoting enmity and harming national integrity. The Supreme Court did not dismiss these concerns outright, but it also expressed discomfort with the arrest. While granting him bail, the court criticised the professor’s “choice of words,” saying that his language amounted to “dogwhistling” and suggested it was aimed at gaining “cheap popularity” during a sensitive time.
Court Criticises Professor’s Remarks, Allows Conditional Bail
Appearing before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the professor had no criminal intent and was only expressing his anti-war sentiments. The bench agreed to grant bail but did not refrain from a stern verbal censure. Justice Kant said that while free speech is protected, it should come with responsibility. He warned against words used to “insult, humiliate and cause discomfort,” especially during a period of national mourning following the Pahalgam attack.
The court imposed three conditions for Mahmudabad’s bail: he cannot write or speak publicly about the case, he must refrain from commenting on Operation Sindoor or the Pahalgam incident, and he must surrender his passport. The court also directed Haryana’s Director General of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three senior IPS officers, including one woman officer, to continue probing the matter impartially.
Targeted for Criticism or Crossed the Line?
The original post by Mahmudabad included a critique of public reactions to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, two women officers who played prominent roles in Operation Sindoor’s media briefings. While acknowledging their symbolic value, he questioned whether such representations reflected a deeper systemic change or were mere “optics.” The Haryana State Commission for Women responded swiftly, filing an FIR accusing the professor of disparaging women in uniform and undermining their credibility as armed forces officers.
Mahmudabad refuted these claims, saying his words were misinterpreted and that his message was about broader hypocrisy in political narratives, not about the officers’ competence. “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 stated.
Minister’s Remarks Go Unpunished, Raising Questions of Fairness
While Professor Mahmudabad faced arrest, a state minister from Madhya Pradesh, Vijay Shah, continues to remain free after making what the Supreme Court described as “crass” and “scurrilous” comments against Col Qureshi. Following public outrage, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the police to register an FIR against Shah. The Supreme Court also took note, asking the state’s DGP to form a three-member SIT to probe the remarks. Yet, Shah’s arrest has been stayed and he has merely issued a public apology, claiming he respects Col Qureshi “more than his sister.”
The stark contrast between how the two cases have unfolded has triggered widespread debate. Why was a professor, whose post was arguably intellectual and policy-oriented, treated more harshly than a public servant who used “gutter language,” as the courts themselves put it?
Academic Freedom and Free Speech Under Strain
The case has put Ashoka University and academic circles under pressure, with many expressing concern about the space available for critical thought in a polarized climate. The university welcomed the bail decision and released a statement expressing relief and support for Mahmudabad, saying, “We are relieved and heartened by Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad being granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has provided great comfort to his family and all of us at Ashoka University.”
As the investigation continues, the case has come to symbolize a broader debate over selective accountability, the narrowing space for dissent, and the fine line between national sentiment and political exploitation. Whether the judicial system will hold all actors to equal standards remains a question as Professor Mahmudabad walks free—silenced but not unheard.
