Sumit Singh and Syed Abubakr, TwoCircles.net
New Delhi: Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor and head of the Political Science Department at Ashoka University, was arrested on May 18 by the Haryana Police in Delhi over a social media post linked to ‘Operation Sindoor’ – India’s military retaliation against Pakistan following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. Based on two First Information Reports (FIRs), the arrest has ignited a storm of controversy and raised concerns about free speech, academic independence and perceived legal “double standards” in the country.
A Facebook post made by him on May 8 led to his arrest wherein he talked about the media briefings by Colonel Sofia Qureshi, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misti after the armed forces launched precision attacks against nine terrorist infrastructures deep inside Pakistan on the intervening night of May 6 and 7.
In the post, Mahmudabad lauded the decision to have two women officers represent the armed forces, seeing it as a symbol of India’s pluralism. However, he warned that such gestures must be accompanied by substantive change, cautioning against “hypocrisy” if issues like “mob lynchings” and “unlawful demolitions” remain “unaddressed”. He urged right-wing commentators praising Col. Qureshi to also advocate for victims of communal violence.
So, what did he write exactly?
While Mahmudabad praised Operation Sindoor and criticised Pakistan’s military response, he expressed grief over civilian casualties on both sides, calling for de-escalation. He concluded that the press briefings showed “an India, united in its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea”.
Academic and Civil Society Condemn Arrest; University Keeps Distance
Ashoka University distanced itself from Mahmudabad’s comments and asserted that the post was made in his personal capacity and does not reflect the institution’s views. “Comments made by a faculty member on his personal social media pages do not represent the opinion of the university,” read the statement.
The university confirmed awareness of his detention and stated it was cooperating with authorities while seeking details of the case.
However, students and faculty expressed strong support for the professor. Ajayant Katoch, a PhD scholar in Sociology and Anthropology at Ashoka, described the arrest as an indicator of the shrinking space for academic freedom and critical inquiry in India.
“Within the university, both student bodies and faculty have unequivocally condemned this action and expressed solidarity with Professor Mahmudabad. Ashoka University’s reluctance to defend him publicly reflects a wider and troubling pattern where institutional autonomy is being eroded by increasing state interference, especially under the New Education Policy,” he said.
Katoch did not shy away from saying what he called the varsity’s hypocrisy in branding itself a liberal arts institution while failing to support its own faculty.
Some students refrained from speaking to the media due to alleged “strict instructions” from faculty members.
Speaking anonymously, a student said, “Professor Mahmudabad has a profound love for the country and its Constitution. Everything he teaches reflects these principles. He is deeply knowledgeable – be it the Gita, the Quran or the Constitution. It is heartbreaking to see him treated this way,” he said.
Another student added, “I took his ‘Economics, Politics and Society’ class in my first semester. He is an insightful mentor and inspiring teacher. His arrest under draconian laws on such flimsy grounds is disheartening.”
Professor Ashwini Deshpande, head of the Economics Department at Ashoka, said, “The faculty association is in complete solidarity with Professor Mahmudabad.”
In a statement, the Faculty Association of Ashoka University termed the arrest “calculated harassment” based on “groundless and untenable charges”. It claimed Mahmudabad was denied access to essential medication and was kept incommunicado for hours.
“Mahmudabad is an invaluable member of our community, a respected educator and a dedicated citizen committed to communal harmony and the greater good,” the statement read.
The Committee for Academic Freedom at the varsity described the arrest as a “disproportionate punishment” and a direct attack on academic independence.
Historian Dr. Ruchika Sharma called the arrest a “travesty of justice”, adding, “His post both praised the women officers and condemned growing communalism in India. It is shocking that Ashoka University chose to distance itself instead of expressing solidarity.”
Inside the Two FIRs Against the Professor
Lodged on May 17 by Yogesh Jatheri – a village sarpanch and BJP Yuva Morcha general secretary in Haryana, the first FIR invokes sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196(1) (promoting enmity), 197(1) (hurting national integration) and 299 (outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Jatheri alleged that Mahmudabad’s remarks incited sentiments benefiting “external forces” and claimed to have been “personally offended” during a face-to-face exchange on the Ashoka University campus.
The second FIR, filed by Haryana State Commission for Women Chairperson Renu Bhatia, accuses Mahmudabad under BNS sections 152, 353(1) (causing public mischief), 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman) and 196(1).
Bhatia alleged that the professor’s post disparaged women officers, misrepresented facts and fuelled “communal unrest” by attributing “malintent” to the armed forces and the government.
Section 152 carries a prison term of up to seven years, while the remaining charges are punishable by up to three years in prison.
Mahmudabad vs Haryana Women’s Panel
The Women’s Commission summoned Mahmudabad on May 14. He submitted a written response through legal counsel, stating, “There is nothing remotely misogynistic in my comments.”
Facebook/Renu Bhatia)
He asserted that his post praised the inclusion of women officers and highlighted India’s diversity.
Describing the commission’s action as “a new form of censorship and harassment”, he reaffirmed his faith in the legal system to uphold constitutional rights.
Bhatia claimed Mahmudabad ignored the summons and did not cooperate when commission members visited Ashoka University on May 15. The following day, she recommended that Haryana’s Director General of Police file an FIR.
On May 18, Bhatia’s expanded complaint alleged that Mahmudabad’s references to the BJP as a “hate-mongering entity” and to right-wing commentators as a “class” incited disharmony. “We visited the university to speak with him. I hoped he would apologise, but he did not seem inclined,” Bhatia said.
She herself has come under criticism, with social media users bringing out a 2017 interview wherein she reportedly struggled to label convicted rapist Ram Rahim as a rapist.
Bhatia further remained silent when the widow of naval officer Lt. Vinay Narwal – killed in the Pahalgam attack – faced online abuse for appealing against communal hatred spread after the Pahalgam attack. Narwal’s widow, Himanshi, hails from Gurugram in Haryana.
Inside the Courtroom
Mahmudabad was arrested from his Delhi home in the early hours of May 18 and taken to Rai Police Station in Sonipat. He was presented before a magistrate later that evening and remanded to two days in police custody. His counsel, Kapil Balyan, stated that the court instructed the police to cooperate, given Mahmudabad’s wife is due to deliver their child imminently.
On May 19, Mahmudabad moved the Supreme Court, seeking immediate release on the grounds that the FIRs were baseless and infringed upon his right to free speech.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court take up the matter on May 21, but Chief Justice BR Gavai advanced it to May 20, pending official listing.
DCP (Crime) Narender Kadian said the police would seek a five-day remand.
BJP Minister’s Controversial Comments Spark Comparison
Mahmudabad’s arrest has been widely compared to that of Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah, who, on May 12, insinuated that Colonel Qureshi was the “sister” of terrorists involved in the Pahalgam attack.
Taking suo motu cognizance of his highly controversial and objectionable remarks, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered an FIR against Shah, calling the statement made during an event “cancerous”. Although Shah apologised, he was neither arrested nor removed from office, prompting criticism of “legal double standards”.
When Shah approached the Supreme Court offering apology, the top court rejected it, saying describing it “crocodile tears” and ordered formation of a three-members Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising IPS officers, to prove the minister’s public statement – which is available online.
Congress leader Pawan Khera said, “Mahmudabad is jailed not for inciting violence but for speaking against it. His real crime? Daring to call out the BJP’s communal hypocrisy and nationalism. Meanwhile, BJP leaders demean the armed forces without consequences.”
Leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi, Mahua Moitra and those belonging to the CPI(M) have condemned the arrest and called it a targeted attack on dissent. Owaisi also alleged that the police violated legal protocol by arresting Mahmudabad from Delhi without proper procedure.
More than 1,200 individuals, including academics, students, journalists and artists, have signed an open letter demanding that the Women’s Commission withdraw its notice and issue a formal apology.
Mahmudabad’s case highlights the fragile balance between national security, communal harmony and constitutionally guaranteed free speech. The outcome of his Supreme Court plea and ongoing investigations may significantly shape the future of academic freedom and political expression in India.