The Supreme Court of India has directed the SIT investigating Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad to limit its probe strictly to two FIRs, cautioning against scope expansion. Learn what the bench said and how the legal battle unfolds.

Supreme Court Directs SIT to Stay Within FIR Limits in Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case

In a key development on May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India restricted the scope of the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) into Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s case. The case concerns social media posts made by the Ashoka University professor regarding the controversial ‘Operation Sindoor’.

The court stated unequivocally that the investigation must be confined solely to the two FIRs already filed. The SIT’s report, according to the bench, should be submitted directly to the Supreme Court before reaching any lower jurisdiction.

Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta Emphasize Probe Boundaries

The directive came from a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta. They asserted:
“We mandate that the SIT’s investigation be limited to the contents of the two FIRs involved in these proceedings. The interim protection is to continue until further notice.”

Kapil Sibal Raises Concern Over Overreach

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal voiced concern that the SIT, established by the State of Haryana, might exceed its legal limits. He highlighted the attempt to gain access to Mahmudabad’s digital devices, suggesting it could lead to an unjustified expansion of the investigation.

Justice Kant responded sharply:
“Both FIRs are on record. Why are devices necessary? Avoid attempting to broaden the scope. Don’t go left and right.”
The court directed the Additional Advocate General of Haryana to ensure that the probe stays within its intended boundaries.

Clarification on Interim Bail and Freedom of Expression

As Sibal requested relaxation of conditions tied to Mahmudabad’s interim bail, Justice Kant clarified that the restrictions were merely part of a “cooling-off” period. He stressed that Mahmudabad is free to publish on any topic, except the matter under current litigation:
“There are no restrictions on his right to speak. We do not desire a parallel media trial.”

National Human Rights Commission’s Involvement

The bench also questioned the Haryana government regarding the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s observations on the FIR registration process.
“You tell us about that as well,” the bench directed the Haryana AAG, underlining the growing national attention on the fairness of the legal process.

Conclusion: Upholding Legal Boundaries and Protecting Rights

The Supreme Court’s firm stance in the case of Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad sends a clear message about the importance of judicial oversight and the protection of constitutional rights. By limiting the SIT’s probe to the two registered FIRs, the Court aims to prevent investigative overreach while safeguarding freedom of speech and due process. The case continues to highlight the delicate balance between state authority and individual liberties in India’s evolving legal landscape.