Academic Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest: Legal Basis Questioned

Bengaluru: The arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad by Haryana Police has raised significant legal and ethical questions. The charges, including endangering India’s sovereignty and insulting the modesty of women, have been scrutinized for their validity.

Academic ArrestLegal BasisFree SpeechAshoka UniversityHaryana PoliceReal EstateMay 19, 2025

Academic Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest: Legal Basis Questioned

Real Estate:The arrest of Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor at Ashoka University, by the Haryana Police has sparked a heated debate on the legal and ethical grounds of the charges against him. The police have invoked a wide range of legal provisions, including those concerning national sovereignty, communal harmony, and women's modesty. However, a closer look at Mahmudabad’s social media posts reveals that these charges may lack substantial legal basis.

In a Facebook post on May 8, Mahmudabad highlighted the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who represented the Army during media briefings on Operation Sindoor, India’s military offensive against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. He suggested that the same commentators should also demand protection for victims of mob lynchings and other forms of state-supported communalism.

Ten days later, the police in BJP-ruled Haryana arrested Mahmudabad under two first information reports (FIRs). One FIR was based on a complaint by Yogesh Jathedi, a BJP Yuva Morcha leader and sarpanch of a village near Ashoka University in Sonipat. The other FIR was based on a complaint by Renu Bhatia, the chairperson of the Haryana State Commission for Women. The sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita invoked in the FIRs are intended to punish acts that insult women’s modesty, cause disharmony, incite secession, and insult religious beliefs.

However, an analysis of Mahmudabad’s posts shows that they do not meet the high thresholds required by these legal provisions. In his post, Mahmudabad commended Operation Sindoor and criticized Pakistan for its military response. He described the loss of civilian lives on both sides as “tragic” and called for de-escalation. He also noted the “grassroots reality” faced by Muslims, which is different from the government’s narrative, but he emphasized that “an India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.”

In another post, Mahmudabad criticized the online abuse against Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri for announcing a ceasefire. He quoted Prophet Muhammad and the Bhagavad Gita, suggesting that true justice and honor lie in ethical restraint. He argued that war mongering disrespects the seriousness of war and dishonors the lives of soldiers.

On May 14, the Haryana State Commission for Women summoned Mahmudabad, claiming that his remarks had disparaged women officers in the Indian armed forces and promoted communal disharmony. Mahmudabad submitted a written response through his lawyers, stating that there was nothing remotely misogynistic about his comments. Bhatia claimed that Mahmudabad ignored the summons and did not appear before the commission when its members visited Ashoka University on May 15. The next day, the women’s commission wrote to Haryana’s Director General of Police recommending the registration of an FIR against Mahmudabad.

On the evening of May 17, Yogesh Jathedi lodged a police complaint against Mahmudabad, alleging that he had incited people against the country and benefited external forces. The complaint misrepresented Mahmudabad’s May 8 post and claimed that he had made these remarks in person to Jathedi and others. The Haryana police filed an FIR and arrested Mahmudabad on Sunday morning.

The first FIR, based on Jathedi’s complaint, invokes Sections 152, 196(1)(b), 197(1), and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The second FIR, based on Bhatia’s complaint, is under Sections 79, 152, 196(1), and 353(1) of the Sanhita. Even a superficial reading of these sections shows that Mahmudabad’s post does not contain the elements necessary to establish these offences.

Section 152 punishes acts endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity. Mahmudabad’s post uses nationalistic phrasing and echoes the principle of India’s unity in diversity. It does not advocate secession, rebellion, or separatist activities. Section 152 mirrors the language of the sedition provision under the Indian Penal Code, which was put on hold by the Supreme Court in May 2022.

Section 79 penalizes acts, words, or gestures intended to insult the modesty of a woman. There is no language in Mahmudabad’s posts that suggests an intention to insult the modesty of any woman. Section 196(1)(b) deals with disturbing communal harmony and public tranquility. Mahmudabad’s post criticizes state-supported communalism but does not instigate against other groups or cause public disturbance.

Section 197(1)(c) deals with imputations prejudicial to national integration and any assertion concerning the obligation of any class of persons by religion, race, language, caste, or community that is likely to cause disharmony. Mahmudabad’s post criticizes political and social behavior, not religious tenets or practices. Section 299 covers deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Mahmudabad’s post criticizes political and social behavior, not religious practices.

Section 353 penalizes statements conducing to public mischief. Mahmudabad’s post, while critical of social and political issues, fails to meet the specific requirement of intention to incite specific harms related to the armed forces, public order, or inter-group conflict through false information. In fact, it calls for unity and citizen protection.

Mahmudabad’s arrest is the latest instance of the misuse of these sections and their previous versions in the Indian Penal Code. Section 152 of the Sanhita is a more stringent version of the sedition provision. Three other provisions of the Sanhita invoked against Mahmudabad are derived from similar provisions of the Indian Penal Code known as the hate speech provisions.

In March, the Supreme Court criticized the tendency of the police to use these sections indiscriminately and held that the police machinery is bound to uphold freedom of speech and expression. Mahmudabad’s arrest raises serious concerns about the misuse of these legal provisions and the impact on academic freedom and free speech in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

What were the legal provisions invoked in Ali Khan Mahmudabad's arrest?

The legal provisions invoked in Ali Khan Mahmudabad's arrest include Sections 152, 196(1)(b), 197(1), 299, and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These sections deal with acts endangering sovereignty, disturbing communal harmony, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and insulting the modesty of women.

What was the content of Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Facebook post that led to his arrest?

In his Facebook post, Mahmudabad highlighted the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who represented the Army during media briefings on Operation Sindoor. He suggested that the same commentators should also demand protection for victims of mob lynchings and other forms of state-supported communalism.

Why did the Haryana State Commission for Women summon Ali Khan Mahmudabad?

The Haryana State Commission for Women summoned Ali Khan Mahmudabad, claiming that his remarks had disparaged women officers in the Indian armed forces and promoted communal disharmony. Mahmudabad submitted a written response through his lawyers, stating that there was nothing remotely misogynistic about his comments.

What did the Supreme Court say about the misuse of these legal provisions?

In March, the Supreme Court criticized the tendency of the police to use these sections indiscriminately and held that the police machinery is bound to uphold freedom of speech and expression. The court set standards for filing an FIR under Sections 196, 197(1), and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

What are the potential implications of Mahmudabad's arrest for academic freedom and free speech in India?

Mahmudabad's arrest raises serious concerns about the misuse of legal provisions and the impact on academic freedom and free speech in India. It highlights the need for a more nuanced and fair application of the law to protect the rights of individuals to express their opinions.