The Haryana government on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it has decided not to grant sanction to prosecute Ashoka University faculty member Ali Khan Mahmudabad over social media posts he made last year in connection with Operation Sindoor.
The submission came before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a petition filed by Mahmudabad challenging his arrest and seeking the quashing of two FIRs registered against him.
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju told the court that the government had chosen to treat the matter with magnanimity and had declined sanction for prosecution as a one-time measure.
“As a one-time magnanimity, the sanction has been refused. The chapter is closed. He may be cautioned that such a situation should not arise again. The refusal order is dated 3 March 2026,” Raju submitted.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Mahmudabad, welcomed the development and thanked the Court.
Taking note of the State’s decision, the Court also issued a word of caution to the academic, observing that public commentary during sensitive situations must be handled with care.
Chief Justice Kant remarked that certain forms of expression can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.
“Sometimes writing in between the lines creates more problems. At times, the situation is so sensitive that we all have to exercise caution. The petitioner, being a highly learned person, should act in a prudent manner in the future,” the CJI said.
Case arose from social media remarks
The case traces back to Facebook posts written by Mahmudabad following India’s military action across the border under Operation Sindoor, which was carried out amid heightened tensions with Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack on 22 April last year.
In the posts, Mahmudabad had condemned Pakistan-sponsored terrorism while also warning against the dangers of war. He had also referred to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi of the Indian Army, who had led the official press briefing on the operation, and argued that the praise she received should translate into broader social reflection.
He further suggested that supporters of right-wing politics in India should also raise their voices against incidents such as mob lynching.
The remarks triggered controversy and led to the registration of two criminal cases against him.
The first FIR was filed based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to promoting enmity, making assertions prejudicial to national integration, endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India, and culpable homicide.
A second FIR followed after a complaint by Haryana State Women’s Commission chairperson Renu Bhatia. That complaint included charges of public mischief, insulting the modesty of a woman, and offences relating to national integrity.
Mahmudabad was subsequently arrested by Haryana Police and remanded to judicial custody.
Supreme Court’s earlier intervention
Mahmudabad approached the Supreme Court soon after his arrest, challenging both the FIRs and the legality of the police action.
In May 2025, the top court granted him interim bail, subject to several conditions. Later that year, in August, it also stayed the criminal trial against him.
During earlier hearings, the court had been informed that prosecution for certain offences cited in the FIRs required prior government sanction. Since such sanction had not been granted, the trial had effectively remained stalled.
The sanction request had been pending with the State government since 22 August 2025. In January this year, the Supreme Court had directed the Haryana government to take a final decision within three months.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who had appeared for Mahmudabad at an earlier stage of the proceedings, had argued that the allegations did not disclose any criminal offence and that the prosecution was unwarranted.
With the Haryana government now declining sanction, the Court noted that the matter effectively stood closed, while reiterating its advice that public figures and academics must remain mindful of the broader context in which their remarks are made.
The state’s refusal to grant sanction closes the criminal case, but the controversy highlights how social media commentary on national security issues can quickly attract criminal prosecution.