Today, On 16th July, During the hearing in the Operation Sindoor case, the Supreme Court criticised the SIT for overstepping its mandate in probing Mahmudabad’s social media posts. “You don’t require him, you require a dictionary,” Justice Kant remarked, highlighting investigative overreach.
New Delhi: In the ongoing case related to the social media posts of the petitioner Mahmudabad, the Supreme Court heard arguments raising concern over the scope of the investigation being carried out by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
A bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, told the court,
“My Lords, please look at your order dated May 28, it clearly stated that the investigation must be limited to the contents of the two FIRs, and that my digital devices should not be accessed.”
He further pointed out how the authorities were now expanding the scope of the probe unnecessarily.
He remarked,
“Now they will ask where you have travelled. How is that relevant?”
Responding to these concerns, Justice Surya Kant assured that the Court does not intend to interfere with the investigation, but expects it to stay within legal boundaries.
He stated,
“We don’t wish to interfere with the investigation, but it must proceed in the proper manner. There are two posts or articles that led to the two FIRs. We never intended to take over the investigative role; that’s why we directed the SIT to analyze the language in those posts and specify exactly which line or paragraph is alleged to constitute an offense.”
Addressing the potential misuse of digital content unrelated to the FIRs, Justice Kant asked,
“If you find material unrelated to these FIRs, how would that affect this investigation?”
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) explained the broader approach, saying,
“For example, if someone being probed for cheating is found involved in a murder, a separate FIR would be filed. The SIT has said it is examining all material.”
To ensure clarity and prevent any excess, Justice Kant said,
“We will ask the SIT what are the devices they have seen and what is the purpose.”
He questioned the method adopted by the SIT and asked bluntly, “Why is the SIT misguiding itself.”
He added,
“The SIT can always say that in this investigation there has been no material found but during the course some material has been found and we are looking into it independently.”
The Court then passed an order reiterating its earlier direction and clarifying the limits of the investigation.
It said,
“We have considered the submissions regarding the scope of the investigation as per the earlier orders. It is clear that the two FIRs against the petitioner are based solely on the social media posts he made on May 8 and May 11. These posts relate to the aftermath of the brutal attack on innocent tourists in Pahalgam. After an initial review of the two posts, the Court permitted the investigation to proceed in order to fully understand the language used and properly interpret the expressions in them. However, given concerns raised about the scope of the probe, the Court made it absolutely clear that the SIT’s investigation must remain limited to the two FIRs.”
The Court further clarified that it was not interfering in the actual process of investigation but expected timely closure of the probe.
“It is not on us to direct how the investigation should proceed. We also direct the SIT to conclude the investigation as early as possible but not later than 4 weeks.”
Since the petitioner had already cooperated and submitted his digital devices, the Court found no reason to call him again.
It said,
“As the petitioner has already cooperated with the investigation and handed over his devices, we find no need to summon him again for the same purpose.”
To clear confusion about previous directions, the Court added,
“To remove any confusion about the conditions in paragraph 6 of the May 21 order, we clarify that the petitioner is free to publish online posts or articles and express his views, provided he does not comment on matters that are sub judice.”
The Court also said that,
“The interim protection from arrest will remain in force.”
Justice Surya Kant, while responding to the State’s arguments, delivered a sharp remark that sparked attention,
“You don’t require him, you require a dictionary.”
This observation summed up the Court’s concern that the investigation must focus only on what was originally ordered, and not stretch beyond legal boundaries.
Operation Sindoor refers to India’s cross-border military response to Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians in India.
In a Facebook post, Mahmudabad stated that with Operation Sindoor, India communicated to Pakistan that, “if you don’t deal with your terrorism problem then we will!”
He criticized those who advocate for war without understanding its consequences, noting,
“The loss of civilian life is tragic on both sides and is the main reason why war should be avoided. There are those who are mindlessly advocating for a war but they have never seen one let alone lived in or visited a conflict zone …”
Also Read: Remarks on Col Sofiya Qureshi: SC to Hear MP Minister Vijay Shah’s Plea Today
He also called on right-wing supporters who praised Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who led the media briefing on Operation Sindoor, to advocate for victims of mob lynchings and arbitrary property demolitions.
He emphasized that the “optics” of having Colonel Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh lead the briefings should translate into real change, warning that otherwise it would be mere hypocrisy.
The first case against Mahmudabad was filed based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, invoking Sections 196 (promoting hatred), 197 (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration), 152 (endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), and 299 (culpable homicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The second FIR stemmed from a complaint by Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia, which included charges under Sections 353 (public mischief), 79 (insult to modesty), and 152 of the BNS.
The State Women’s Commission previously described Mahmudabad’s social media comments as disparaging toward women officers in the Indian Armed Forces and accused him of promoting communal disharmony, issuing a show-cause notice to the professor.
In a statement on X (Twitter), Mahmudabad asserted that the commission had completely misinterpreted his comments and distorted their meaning. He is expected to be presented before the trial court next on May 20 at 2 PM.