Supreme Court Takes Stern View Against Academic Protests Over Ashoka University Professor’s Arrest

In a significant development concerning the arrest of Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his comments on "Operation Sindoor," the Supreme Court of India on May 21, 2025, expressed strong disapproval of the ongoing protests by students and faculty members from academic institutions. The Court, while hearing the professor’s plea challenging the FIR filed by the Haryana Police and his subsequent arrest, conveyed its deep concern over what it termed as “irresponsible behavior” by certain segments of the academic community.

The matter was presided over by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh. The bench made clear its discontent with the reaction from members of academia, particularly referencing reports of public condemnation and organized demonstrations against the arrest. Justice Kant, while addressing the issue, remarked, "If they dare to do anything, we will pass orders. It is not acceptable to us that these so-called private universities open and all kinds of elements join hands there and start making irresponsible statements. We know how to deal with these people; they are not outside our jurisdiction."

The remarks came in response to widespread academic support for Professor Mahmudabad. The Ashoka University Faculty Association had issued a public statement condemning what it described as “calculated harassment” of the professor. According to their account, Mahmudabad was arrested early in the morning from his residence in New Delhi, transported to Sonipat without adequate communication, and allegedly denied timely access to essential medication during the process.

The faculty’s statement emphasized concerns regarding civil liberties and due process, asserting that Mahmudabad’s treatment raised serious questions about custodial protocol and freedom of expression. In solidarity, members of the university’s teaching staff reportedly organized shifts to remain close to the professor during his judicial custody to ensure he received proper food and his diabetes medication.

While granting interim bail to Professor Mahmudabad, the Supreme Court declined to stay the ongoing investigation. However, the Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a fair and impartial probe. Importantly, this SIT will be composed of senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers who are not affiliated with the state of Haryana or Delhi, an attempt to prevent any potential bias or undue influence in the inquiry.

Justice Surya Kant took the occasion to highlight the imbalance between rights and responsibilities in public discourse, asserting that citizens often emphasize freedoms while overlooking civic duties. “Everybody talks about rights. As if the country for the last 75 years was distributing rights!” he exclaimed. He also commented on the need for civil discourse, stressing that the professor’s language in his posts should have been “polite, respectful, and neutral” to avoid causing offense. He remarked that the post in question amounted to what is known in legal parlance as “dog whistling”—a subtle or coded message intended to provoke or incite.

The professor’s arrest stems from a Facebook post related to "Operation Sindoor," which reportedly triggered the filing of an FIR by Haryana Police, alleging the post to be provocative and inflammatory. Mahmudabad, a respected historian and academic, has maintained that his remarks were misinterpreted and fall well within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

The Court’s firm stance reflects its growing concern with the role of academic institutions in shaping public discourse and their responsibility in maintaining lawful conduct. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining the direction of the investigation and the broader implications this case may have on freedom of speech, academic autonomy, and the limits of dissent in India’s democratic framework.