Source: The Hindu  

Introduction 

The Supreme Court's decision in the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case presents a complex intersection of free speech rights and national security concerns in the digital age. The case arose Professor at a renowned university was arrested by Haryana Police over his social media posts regarding 'Operation Sindoor,' India's military offensive against terrorist infrastructure. While granting him interim bail, the Court's approach reveals the ongoing tension between constitutional guarantees of free expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the state's authority to regulate speech that allegedly threatens communal harmony and national integrity. 

What was the Background of Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case ? 

• Professor at a renowned university was arrested by Haryana Police on 18th May 2025, following two FIRs registered against him for his social media posts about 'Operation Sindoor' - India's military offensive targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).  
• The professor had posted on Facebook and Instagram, criticizing Pakistan's military actions while commending Indian armed forces' strategic restraint, and later condemned online abuse directed at Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri for announcing a ceasefire. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• On the Professor's Posts: "This is what we call in the law - dog whistling! Some of the opinions are not offending to the nation as such. But while giving an opinion, if you... When the choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons, the learned professor cannot have the lack of dictionary words...he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others." 
• On Timing and Context: "Everybody has a right to express free speech. But is it the time to talk of this much communal...? The country has faced a big challenge. Monsters came all the way and attacked our innocents. We were staying united. But at this juncture.. why to gain cheap popularity on this occasion?" 
• On Rights and Responsibilities: "Everybody talks about rights. As if the country for the last 75 years was distributing rights! Have some respect for the sentiments of others. Use simple and neutral kind of language, respecting others." 
• On Dual Meanings: "The entire projection is that he is anti-War, saying families of army people, civilian in border areas etc., suffer. But some words have double meaning also. The bona fides of the comment was a subject matter of investigation." 
• Court's Balanced Approach: The bench clarified that interim bail was granted solely to "facilitate further investigation" and emphasized the need for a Special Investigation Team comprising senior IPS officers from outside Haryana and Delhi to "holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts." 

References Made in Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case 

Key Precedents Cited 

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): 
  • Significance: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 
  • Key Principle: Established that vague grounds such as "annoyance," "insult," or "hatred" cannot justify criminalization of speech. 
  • Holding: Speech which "offends, shocks, or disturbs" remains protected under Article 19(1)(a), and any restriction must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2).
• Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): 
  • Significance: Constitution Bench decision on Article 19(2) restrictions. 
  • Key Principle: The grounds enumerated in Article 19(2) are exhaustive - no additional restrictions can be read into the constitutional framework. 
  • Holding: "No one can either be taxed or penalised for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with the constitutional values".
• Imran Pratapgarhi Case (March 2025) 
  • Significance: Recent Supreme Court standards for FIRs under Sections 196, 197(1), and 299 of BNS. 
  • Key Principle: Impact of spoken/written words must be assessed from the perspective of "reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals". 
  • Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan 
  • Context: Congress MP booked for social media post quoting his poem. 
  • Holding: Courts have a "duty to uphold" and "zealously protect" fundamental freedoms under Article 19(1)(a), even if speech discomforts members of judiciary. 

Legal Commentary on Precedential Inconsistency 

• Expert Observation by Alok Prasanna Kumar (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy): Noted that "judicial disregard for precedents set by coordinate benches has become a routine feature of the courts" with judges "increasingly allowing personal biases or prevailing public sentiment to influence their decision-making." 
• Justice Gautam Patel's Analysis: Former Bombay High Court judge observed that "constitutional ethos demands that the reading favouring the right to free speech must prevail" and that alleged deficiency of "patriotism" cannot serve as legitimate basis to criminalize speech. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred in the Case ? 

Constitutional Provisions 

• Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression 
  • Fundamental right guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression. 
  • Protected under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights). 
• Article 19(2) - Reasonable Restrictions 
  • Permits restrictions on speech only on eight narrowly defined grounds:  
    • Security of the State 
    • Friendly relations with foreign States 
    • Public order 
    • Decency or morality 
    • Contempt of court 
    • Defamation 
    • Incitement to an offence 
    • Sovereignty and integrity of India 

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 - Criminal Charges 

• Section 152 - Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India 
  • Punishment: Up to 7 years imprisonment 
  • Nature: Mirrors colonial-era sedition law under repealed Indian Penal Code 
  • Current Status: Supreme Court placed sedition in abeyance in 2022 
• Section 196(1)(b) - Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups 
  • Offense: Acts that disturb communal harmony and public tranquility 
  • Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment 
  • Context: Prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony 
• Section 197(1)(c) - Assertions Prejudicial to National Integration 
  • Offense: Imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration 
  • Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment 
  • Scope: Making assertions likely to cause disharmony 
• Section 299 - Deliberate and Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage Religious Feelings 
  • Offense: Acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class 
  • Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment 
  • Application: Criminalizing deliberate and malicious religious offense 
• Section 79 - Word, Gesture or Act Intended to Insult Modesty of a Woman 
  • Offense: Acts, words or gestures intended to insult modesty of a woman 
  • Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment 
  • Context: Applied based on references to women army officers 
• Section 353 - Statements Conducing to Public Mischief 
  • Offense: Making statements that conduce to public mischief 
  • Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment 
  • Scope: Broad provision targeting disruptive statements 

Conclusion 

The Mahmudabad case underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between protecting fundamental rights and addressing legitimate security concerns. While the Supreme Court granted interim bail to facilitate investigation, its directive to constitute a specialized SIT and conditional restrictions on the professor's future expressions reflect judicial caution in matters involving allegedly seditious content. The case ultimately raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of patriotic discourse and whether unpopular or critical speech can be excluded from constitutional protection, setting important precedents for digital-age free speech jurisprudence in India.