Key Points
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad after the Haryana government declined to grant sanction for prosecution over his social media posts on Operation Sindoor.
The state told the court it refused sanction as a “one time magnanimity,” following the court’s earlier suggestion to reconsider the case as the state government had failed to provide sanction for prosecution months after complaints were registered.
In his post, Mahmudabad had condemned Pakistan’s terror network and criticised online warmongering. He said, “optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it's just hypocrisy,” in reference to the praise Colonel Sofiya Qureshi was receiving online for leading the mission.
The Supreme Court on 16 March 2026 quashed criminal proceedings against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad after the Haryana government informed the court that it had refused to grant sanction for his prosecution in connection with social media posts about Operation Sindoor.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded the state’s decision and ordered the closure of the proceedings pending before the trial court. The development comes after the SC had “urged” the Haryana government to consider declining sanction required for prosecution in January 2026.
“As a one time magnanimity, the sanction is refused,” Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said, adding that the decision was taken on 3 March 2026. The court accepted the submission and noted that the criminal proceedings against Mahmudabad would stand closed.
At the same time, the Bench advised caution in public expression, observing that sensitive situations can lead to statements being interpreted differently. CJI Kant remarked that sometimes writing in a manner that can be read “between the lines” may create problems. “Sometimes the situation is sensitive, and we have to be careful,” he said, expressing confidence that Mahmudabad would act prudently in the future.
The case originated from social media posts made by Mahmudabad in the context of Operation Sindoor, India’s cross border military response following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025.
In his post, Mahmudabad had condemned Pakistan’s terror network, adding that India would dismantle it itself, before going on to criticise warmongering online. He asked that those praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi for leading the press briefing on Operation Sindoor also stand up for the victims of mob lynchings and hate crimes within India. He concluded his post by pointing to the communalism entrenched in Indian politics, saying that “optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it's just hypocrisy.”
The posts drew criticism and led to criminal complaints alleging that his remarks endangered national sovereignty and could disturb communal harmony. Two FIRs were registered against him in Haryana’s Sonipat district. One complaint was filed by Haryana State Commission for Women chairperson Renu Bhatia and another by a village sarpanch.
The FIRs invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 152 related to acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, Section 196 concerning promotion of enmity between groups, and Section 353 dealing with statements leading to public mischief. Another provision related to insulting the modesty of a woman was also cited.
Mahmudabad was arrested by Haryana Police on 18 May 2025 and spent three days in custody before approaching the Supreme Court. Mahmudabad had challenged both the FIRs and his arrest before the SC, arguing that his social media posts did not constitute a criminal offence. His arrest had drawn criticism from several academicians and political figures at the time.
In May 2025, the apex court granted him interim bail while allowing the investigation to continue. The court had also directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team comprising three senior IPS officers to examine the language used in the social media posts, suspecting it amounted to dog whistling.
A chargesheet in the case was filed in August 2025. However, prosecution required prior sanction from the Haryana government for certain offences invoked in the FIRs. The state had not granted the sanction for several months, prompting the SC stay proceedings against the professor.
During hearings in January 2026, the Bench suggested that the state could decline sanction as a “one time gesture of magnanimity” and bring the case to a close. The court noted that the professor, being a “highly learned” academic, was expected to exercise prudence in future statements, particularly during sensitive situations.
Nearly a year since the incident, the case now stands formally closed.
[DS]
Suggested Reading: