Supreme Court Grants Bail to Ashoka University Professor, Underscores Balance Between Free Speech and Responsibility

 New Delhi, May 22 — The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who was arrested over a Facebook post related to Operation Sindoor, while affirming the fundamental right to free speech but cautioning against shirking civic responsibilities in the name of that right.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh remarked during the hearing that while the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to free expression, the exercise of this liberty must be accompanied by a sense of duty. “You should know what is happening. There is a right to free speech, etc. Where is the duty? As if the whole country for the last 75 years has only been distributing rights and no duty,” Justice Kant observed.

The court declined to stay the ongoing investigation against Professor Mahmudabad but directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three officers from outside Haryana and Delhi, including at least one woman officer. The court further ordered that the professor be released on bail.

“Having regard to the two online posts that have led to FIR registration, we are satisfied that no case for staying the investigation is made out,” the court stated.

Professor Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, following the registration of two FIRs under stringent sections, including charges related to endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India. He was remanded to 14 days of judicial custody before moving the apex court, which agreed to hear his petition challenging the FIRs.

Appearing for the professor, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal read the controversial Facebook post aloud in court, asserting that it reflected a patriotic sentiment. “With the greatest respect, this is a patriotic statement,” Sibal argued.

Justice Kant, while acknowledging the post’s commentary on war and its consequences, noted a shift in tone. “While he is giving an opinion on the effects of war on civilians, army personnel, etc., now he is turning to politics… Please read it again,” the judge said.

Referring to specific remarks in the post that juxtaposed support for army officers with criticism of mob lynchings and the demolition of homes, the court questioned the timing and intent behind such comments. “Mr. Sibal, of course, everyone has the right to express… but is this the time to talk of this much communal [content]? The country has faced a big challenge, civilians were attacked, and at that time, why are they trying to gain popularity on this occasion?” Justice Kant remarked.

Sibal defended the post, asserting that it lacked any criminal element and was a tribute to the armed forces, not a denigration. “He is saluting the forces, not insulting them,” Sibal emphasized.

However, the bench cautioned against the use of provocative or divisive language. “This is called dog-whistling, what we understand in law,” Justice Kant explained. “When the choice of words is deliberately to insult, humiliate, or cause discomfort to the other party. We are sure that he is very educated…. You could have conveyed the same in simple language without hurting others, using terms that are respectful.”

While granting bail, the court struck a delicate balance between protecting civil liberties and reminding citizens—particularly those in positions of influence—of their responsibility to contribute to a harmonious public discourse.