The Supreme Court on Monday closed the criminal case registered against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for his objectionable social media posts on Operation Sindoor after the Haryana government informed the court that it had decided not to prosecute him as a “one-time magnanimity”.

Additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju informed a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that pursuant to the January 6 suggestion by the bench to consider a one-time relief, the BJP-helmed state government has rejected the police plea for sanction for prosecution.

“As a one-time magnanimity, the sanction is refused. The chapter is closed. He (Mahmudabad) can be warned that this is not repeated,” Raju told the bench during a brief hearing.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the professor, said: “We are grateful.”

The CJI, while recording Raju’s submission and directing that the case be closed in view of the state’s decision, orally observed that “sometimes writing in between the lines creates more problems. Sometimes the situation is so sensitive that we all have to be careful”.

The apex court hoped that the “petitioner, being a highly learned person, shall act in a prudent manner in the future”.

Mahmudabad’s case is the second instance in the last week wherein the NDA government chose to withdraw a case or desist from proceeding against the accused.

Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk was released on March 14 after being detained in Jodhpur jail for 170 days under the National Security Act (NSA) following violent protests in Ladakh over statehood demand.

On January 6, the top court had granted six weeks to the Haryana government to consider closing the criminal case against Mahmudabad.

He was booked for his social media posts on Operation Sindoor in which he had criticised “Right-wing commentators” applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi but not being critical of incidents relating to “mob lynching”, “arbitrary bulldozing”, and “hate mongering”.

At that time, the bench of CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi had, however, hoped that Mahmudabad too would reciprocate “responsibly” by not repeating his actions.

“As a one-time magnanimity, can’t the case be closed? The bench had orally asked Raju, who sought permission to take instructions from the government on the issue.

On August 25 last year, the top court had quashed one of the two FIRs registered against Mahmudabad and restrained the trial court magistrate from taking cognisance of the second FIR against the professor.

On July 16, the apex court had slammed the court-directed special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Haryana government for “misdirecting” its investigations into the two FIRs lodged against Mahmudabad.

It had also questioned the SIT for its apparent overreach in seizing the phone and electronic gadgets of the accused and for interrogating him on his foreign visits. It had directed the SIT to confine the investigation to only the two FIRs and complete the probe within four weeks.

The bench had clarified that Mahmudabad was free to write his articles on any issues except in relation to the matter at hand, which was sub judice.

The apex court said the SIT didn’t need to quiz Mahmudabad further but should examine his contentious social media posts and see if there was an offence. “You don’t need him. You need a dictionary,” the bench had remarked.

On May 1, the bench had granted interim bail to Mahmudabad but refused to stay investigations into the two FIRs registered against him by the Haryana police, and had directed a three-member SIT probe.