By Pradeep S. Mehta
As India navigates the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and unites through Operation Sindoor, a critical question arises: can we combat terrorism as one nation, transcending religious divides, while safeguarding democratic freedoms?
Dr B.R. Ambedkar had envisioned “the unity of India as a living reality”. The arrest of Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, head of the political science department at Ashoka University, on May 18, 2025, by the Haryana police has threatened this vision.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision on May 21 to grant him interim bail reaffirms constitutional morality, protecting the life and liberty of a citizen.
This article examines the legal flaws, selective enforcement, and broader implications of his arrest, highlighting the misuse of State power and the threat to academic freedom.
The arrest and its context: On May 8, 2025, Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad posted on Facebook, commending Operation Sindoor and praising the two briefing officers, Col. Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, as symbols of India’s pluralism. He criticised the conservative commentators who celebrate diversity but ignore mob lynchings and the use of bulldozers, urging the State to protect all citizens. His post, ending with “Jai Hind”, was a patriotic call for unity.
However, complaints from Renu Bhatia, chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women, and Yogesh Jatheri, a BJP Yuva Morcha leader, led to his arrest under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 152 (endangering sovereignty).
Supreme Court’s intervention: On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, granted interim bail to Prof. Mahmudabad but declined to stay the two FIRs against him. The court also ordered the Haryana director-general of police to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours, comprising three senior IPS officers from outside Haryana, including a woman officer, to probe the case.
Prof. Mahmudabad was restrained from commenting on the Pahalgam attack or Operation Sindoor, required to surrender his passport, and furnish a single bail bond for both FIRs.
Justice Kant noted that the posts shifted from addressing war’s horrors to political commentary, questioning their timing. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued the posts were patriotic and lacked intent to incite communal tension.
Legal flaws in the charges: The charges against Prof. Mahmudabad, a nationalist who championed India’s unity, lack legal merit. He faces accusations under BNS Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196 (promoting enmity), 197 (prejudicial to national integration), 299 (outraging religious feelings), 353 (public mischief), and 79 (insulting women’s modesty).
Our legal analysis confirms the post does not meet these sections’ thresholds, as it neither incites violence nor disparages the women officers.
*Section 152 resembles the sedition law (Section 124A, IPC), suspended in 2022 for its vagueness (S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, 2022).
*Similarly, Section 66A of the IT Act, struck down in 2015 for criminalising “offensive” posts, enabled arrests for harmless comments (Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 2015). The court warned: “Governments may come and go, but Section 66A goes on forever unless checked.” Prof. Mahmudabad’s post, a call for equity, is mislabelled seditious.
Selective enforcement and communal bias: The arrest violates Article 14’s guarantee of equality before the law. Jurist A.V. Dicey emphasized: “Equality before the law means no one is above it”.
Yet, Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah’s remark calling Col. Sofiya Qureshi “antakwadiyon ki behn” (“sister of terrorists”) drew a weak FIR, while deputy chief minister Jagdish Devda’s claim that the Army “bows their heads to PM Modi” faced no action.
Prof. Mahmudabad, a former Samajwadi Party spokesperson, faces jail for a critique. Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s words resonate: “Hum aah bhi karte hain to ho jate hain badnaam, vo qatl bhi karte hain to charcha nahin hota” (When we sigh, we become infamous; when they kill, there is no mention; Dast-e-Saba, 1952).
The free speech debate: Some argue that Prof. Mahmudabad’s post was ill-timed, as he compared the Army’s diverse representation in Operation Sindoor’s media briefings to societal failures like mob lynchings, two issues not on the same scale or even remotely connected.
Sensitivity matters, but silencing a patriot’s voice is not the answer. Article 19 guarantees free speech, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), but arresting Prof. Mahmudabad for a non-violent suggestion is quite disproportionate.
The Supreme Court, in Imran Pratapgarhi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, stated: “Free speech cannot be stifled by those who see criticism as a threat”.
Counter-speech strengthens democracy and it is a part of our civilisational DNA.
Threat to academic freedom and pluralism: India’s soldiers, like Col. Qureshi, embody a secular meritocracy. Prof. Mahmudabad, a nationalist, celebrated this unity, yet his arrest undermines it.
His lineage, tied to the Muslim League through his late father, and his maternal grandfather, former foreign secretary Jagat Singh Mehta, reflects India’s social diversity.
Laws like BNS Section 152 chill discourse, echoing Section 66A’s legacy. India’s Constitution, crafted by 299 diverse delegates, protects free thought. Divisive ideologies hinder progress, but the pen weaves the truth, and the law must not unravel it.
Call to action: The Supreme Court’s interim bail is a triumph for constitutional morality. Yet, the FIRs must be quashed to fully uphold free speech. The SIT must investigate impartially, and the police should refrain from further FIRs, as advised by Justice Kant.
India’s democracy thrives on inclusivity. Let us reject division and embrace our kaleidoscope of unity.
Rabindranath Tagore’s vision endures: “Where the mind is without fear… into that heaven of freedom, let my country awake” (Gitanjali, 1910).
The writer is the secretary-general of CUTS International, a 40-year-old leading global public policy research and advocacy group.
This article can also be viewed at:
https://www.asianage.com/
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/