Why in news
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 over social media posts related to Operation Sindoor.
The Supreme Court granted him interim bail on May 21 but did not stop the ongoing investigation.
What the Posts Said
In a May 8 Facebook post, he criticised Pakistan’s military and praised Indian restraint, calling civilian deaths on both sides “tragic.”
He appreciated India’s pluralism shown by including women officers in briefings but warned it would seem “hypocritical” without real reform.
In a May 11 post, he condemned online abuse of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and spoke against the public’s call for war.
Charges Against the Professor
FIRs were filed by BJP leader Yogesh Jathedi and Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia.
He faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including:
Section 152: endangering India’s sovereignty and unity (similar to sedition)
Section 196(1)(b): disturbing communal harmony
Section 197(1)(c): harming national integration
Section 299: outraging religious feelings
Section 79: insulting the modesty of a woman
Section 353: statements causing public mischief
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court granted bail to assist the investigation, not as a judgment on guilt.
The Court said some words in his posts might be ambiguous or have “dual meanings.”
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) of senior officers (not from Delhi or Haryana) will examine the posts’ intent.
Constitution and Free Speech
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech; restrictions allowed only under specific grounds in Article 19(2).
In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Court struck down vague speech laws like Section 66A of the IT Act.
Kaushal Kishor (2023) reaffirmed that only the eight listed grounds in Article 19(2) justify restrictions.
Justice Gautam Patel said nothing in the posts violated Article 19(2), and free speech must be interpreted generously.
Concerns About Inconsistency
In March, the Court ruled that only strong, rational individuals' perspective should be used to judge speech’s impact.
The Imran Pratapgarhi case emphasized the need to protect speech that might cause discomfort but is still lawful.
Experts warn that some courts ignore precedents and let personal or political bias influence decisions.
COMMENTS