Today, On 16th March, The Haryana government informed the Supreme Court of India that it would, as a one-time act of “magnanimity”, refuse sanction to prosecute Ali Khan Mahmudabad. The case concerns social-media comments on Operation Sindoor made.
The Haryana government told the Supreme Court that, as a one‑time gesture of “magnanimity”, it will refuse to grant sanction to prosecute Ashoka University faculty member Ali Khan Mahmudabad for certain social‑media remarks he made last year about India’s cross‑border military action, Operation Sindoor.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was informed of the decision this morning.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Haryana, said a choice was made on March 3 not to pursue criminal proceedings against Mahmudabad.
He stated,
“As a one-time magnanimity, the sanction is refused. The chapter is closed. He can be warned that this is not repeated again. Refusal order is of March 3, 2026,”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Mahmudabad, responded: “We are grateful.”
The court, however, cautioned Mahmudabad to exercise greater care going forward.
CJI Kant observed,
“Sometimes writing in between the lines creates more problems. Sometimes the situation is so sensitive that we all have to be careful. Petitioner being a highly learned person shall act in a prudent manner in the future,”
The hearing concerned Mahmudabad’s challenge to his arrest and a plea to quash two first information reports filed over his Facebook commentary on Operation Sindoor India’s military response to Pakistan following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
In his post, Mahmudabad condemned Pakistan‑backed terrorism, decried war, suggested that the praise for Colonel Sofiya Qureshi who led India’s press briefing on Operation Sindoor should be matched by achievements on the ground, and urged right‑wing supporters to also speak out against mob lynching.
Two FIRs were registered after complaints. The first, filed by Yogesh Jatheri, cited offences under 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.
The second complaint came from Haryana Women’s Commission Chairperson Renu Bhatia and alleged offences under Sections 353 (public mischief), 79 (insult to modesty), and 152 of the BNS.
Mahmudabad was arrested and placed in judicial custody. After he approached the Supreme Court, the probe was transferred to a Special Investigation Team constituted by the Court.
The Supreme Court granted him interim bail on May 21, 2025, subject to conditions, and stayed the trial in August 2025.
At a prior hearing the court was told the State had not yet decided whether to grant sanction for prosecution on two of the cited offences, preventing the criminal trial from proceeding. The sanction request dated back to August 22, 2025; the court in January gave the State three months to decide.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mahmudabad, argued in January that there was no basis to prosecute him. CJI Kant then urged Mahmudabad to be mindful when commenting publicly in case the State ultimately declined to permit prosecution advice the court reiterated today after the State said it would drop the matter.