The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Haryana government’s special investigation team for “misdirecting” its investigation into the two FIRs lodged against an Ashoka University professor booked for his social media posts on Operation Sindoor.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the SIT for its apparent overreach in seizing the phone and electronic gadgets of accused Ali Khan Mahmudabad and for interrogating him on his foreign visits. It directed the SIT to confine the investigation to only the two FIRs and complete the probe within four weeks.

The bench also clarified that Mahmudabad was free to write on any issue except the current dispute, which was sub-judice.

The apex court said that the SIT didn’t need to quiz Mahmudabad further but should examine his contentious social media posts and see if there was an offence.

“We want to know from the SIT why they have seized the devices. We will call them. We are asking why the SIT, on the face of it, is misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts. They can say that the article is an opinion and does not constitute an offence,” Justice Surya Kant, heading the bench, told additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju, representing the Haryana government.

The bench made the remark after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, complained that the SIT’s actions had flouted the court’s earlier directive to keep the focus of the probe on the FIRs only.

Sibal said the SIT conducted a “roving inquiry” and sent the gadgets seized from the professor to the forensic laboratory for examination.

He referred to the interim status report of the SIT, saying it had received the forensic lab report of the gadgets and two more months were required for its examination.

“All you had to do was to examine the posts as to whether the expression, words or terminology constitutes an offence alleged in the FIRs. For that, you do not need him or his gadgets. Yes, you need a dictionary,” Justice Surya Kant told Raju.

Raju, however, said it was the prerogative of the investigating agency to decide how it wanted to conduct the probe.

The bench said: “It is always open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs do not disclose any offence... that the case can be closed. Alternatively, they can also say that during investigation, they have come across certain incriminating materials which constitute an offence, then the law will take its own course.”

The top court said the interim protection from arrest granted to Mahmudabad on May 1 would continue.

The court had earlier refused to stay investigations in the two FIRs registered against Mahmudabad by Haryana Police, gagged him from posting anything on Operation Sindoor, and directed a three-member SIT probe headed by an IG-rank officer not belonging to Haryana or Delhi.

It had also termed the controversial statements made by the professor “dog whistling”.

“This is what we call in the law ‘dog whistling’. Some of the comments are not offending the nation as such. But when the choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons… we do not think the learned professor was short of words… He could have used simple language without hurting others,” Justice Surya Kant had observed.