Breaking: The Supreme Court forms a SIT to investigate posts regarding Operation Sindoor and grants Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad temporary bail.
 |
| The bench, presided over by Justice Kant, voiced disapproval of the petitioner's post during the hearing. |
In the Haryana Police FIR against Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for his social media statements about "Operation Sindoor," the Supreme Court granted him temporary release on Wednesday, May 21. Since his arrest on May 18, he has remained in detention.
The Court declined to halt the probe at the same time. A Special Investigation Team made up of senior IPS officers who are not from Haryana or Delhi was also ordered by the court to be formed by the Haryana DGP within 24 hours in order to look into and comprehend the actual purpose of the position. The SIT should have one female officer. An IG rank officer should lead the SIT, and the other two members must be SP rank.
The Court barred Ali Khan Mahmudabad from writing any articles or posts about the social media posts that are the focus of the case, as well as from voicing any opinions regarding the terrorist attack on Indian soil or India's counter-reaction, as a condition of interim bail. Additionally, the Court ordered him to participate in and assist completely with the investigation. He has received instructions to turn in his passport.
The temporary bail was granted to allow for additional inquiry, according to the bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, asked the court to prevent the filing of more FIRs on the same matter after the order was delivered. "Nothing will happen," voiced by Justice Kant. Orally, Justice Kant requested that the State of Haryana make sure of that. The State was given the freedom to document any additional incriminating information they found while conducting the inquiry.
During the hearing, Bench questions the petitioner's posts.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal began by drawing the bench's notice to remarks made by Mahmudabad on his Instagram and Facebook pages. He read the bench the comments. Sibal remarked, "This is a very patriotic statement."
Justice Kant reacted, "So after commenting about war, he turned to politics!" in reference to Mahmudabad's remarks regarding "right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi" and his assertion that right-wing commentators must equally voice worries for victims of mob lynching, bulldozing, etc.
Everyone is entitled to free expression. However, is now the right moment to discuss this much communal...? The nation has encountered a significant obstacle. Our innocents were attacked by monsters that came all the way. We remained together. However, now is not the time to acquire flimsy popularity. Justice Kant stated. Sibal acknowledged that Mahmudabad's remarks may have been postponed until May 10th, but he questioned why they were illegal. "Everyone discusses rights. As though the nation had been dispersing rights for the last 75 years. Justice Kant stated.
Justice Kant remarked, "This is what we call in the law - dog whistling!" in response to the petitioner's remarks.
"Not all of the viewpoints are offensive to the country in general. However, when expressing a viewpoint, if you. Justice Kant stated
"The learned professor cannot be without dictionary words when the words are purposefully chosen to offend, degrade, or upset other people. He could express the same sentiments in plain language without causing harm to others." Show some consideration for other people's feelings. Respect others by using plain, neutral language, according to Justice Kant.
According to Sibal, there was no "criminal intent" in the remarks. According to the petitioner, the press briefing on Operation Sindoor demonstrated that the reasoning behind Pakistan's establishment had failed, and the post concluded with the words "Jai Hind."
He further mentioned that the petitioner's wife is nine months along and is due any moment now.
On behalf of the State of Haryana, Justice Kant questioned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju about whether the remarks were offensive to female army officers. According to Justice Kant, the comment's veracity constituted a topic for inquiry. "The whole impression is that he opposes war, claiming that civilians in border regions, army personnel's families, etc., suffer. However, some words have more than one meaning," he added. According to ASG Raju, the tweet was not as innocent as Sibal had claimed.
According to ASG Raju, the tweet was not as innocent as Sibal had claimed. Mahmudabad was placed under judicial custody yesterday by a Sonepat, Haryana, municipal court. The State Police asked the court to hold him for seven days, but the court denied their request. The Professor was placed under two days of police arrest by the magistrate on May 18. Mahmudabad is accused of violating the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's Sections 196, 152, and others, which include, among other things, actions that undermine communal harmony, statements that could incite discord, actions that jeopardize national sovereignty, and remarks or actions meant to belittle a woman's modesty. The Haryana State Commission for Women, led by Renu Bhatia, also called him.
0 Comments