SC records Haryana’s refusal to prosecute Prof. Mahmudabad over Operation Sindoor post

Today, the Supreme Court recorded that the state of Haryana has declined sanction to prosecute Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in connection with his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the state, told the Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant that the government had decided not to proceed with prosecution. “As a one-time magnanimity, the sanction is refused… He can be warned to not repeat this again,” Raju submitted. The refusal order is dated 3 March.

Court warns against “writing between the lines”

While recording the state’s decision, CJI Surya Kant observed, “Sometimes writing in between the lines creates more problems. Sometimes the situation is so sensitive that we all have to be careful.”

CJI Surya Kant also recorded that it had no reason to doubt that Mahmudabad, being a “highly learned professor”, would act in a prudent manner in the future.

Background

The case arises from criminal proceedings initiated against Mahmudabad over a Facebook post written during Operation Sindoor. In his post, he praised the appointment of Muslim women Army officers as evidence of secular vision, and had urged the right wing to oppose lynchings and home demolitions as strongly as they had supported Colonel Sofia Qureshi. 

On 21 May 2025, the Court had granted Mahmudabad interim bail while permitting the investigation to continue. The Court had constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine the allegations.

Subsequently, on 25 August 2025, the Court quashed proceedings arising out of one of the FIRs registered against Mahmudabad and directed that no cognizance be taken of the chargesheet filed in the other FIR.

During those hearings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, questioned the basis of the prosecution and urged the Court to ask the state to identify the offence disclosed in the chargesheet. Calling the criminal action “most unfortunate,” Sibal told the Bench that the allegations did not disclose any offence under law.

Referring to the provision invoked by the state, he pointed out that the chargesheet relied on Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Addressing the prosecution, Sibal had remarked, “Persecuting people in the country, that’s what you’re doing.”

With the Haryana government now declining sanction for prosecution, the matter has come to a close.