The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted six weeks to the Haryana government to consider closing the criminal case against Ashoka University associate professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, booked for his social media posts on Operation Sindoor, as a “one-time magnanimity”.

A bench of Chief Justice Suya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, 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 orally asked additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju, the state’s counsel who sought permission to seek instructions from the government on the issue.

The bench listed the matter for hearing after six weeks.

During the hearing, Raju submitted that the SIT had filed the chargesheet in August 2025, but was yet to get the sanction from the competent authority for Mahmudabad’s prosecution.

“Ok then, as a one-time magnanimity can’t the case be closed?” the bench asked, adding: “Of course, then he (Mahmudabad) will also
have to behave more responsibly in future.”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the
academic, said no criminal case was made out against
his client.

“We also don’t want that as soon as they decide not to grant sanction, you (Mahmudabad) go and write any
damn thing you want! If the (state) shows some magnanimity, then you also have to be responsible,” Justice Surya
Kant observed.

However, the court finally left the matter of granting a “one-time magnanimity” to the wisdom of the “competent authority”.

On August 25 last year, the top court had quashed one of the two FIRs registered against Mahmudabad relating to 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”.

The top court had also restrained the trial court magistrate from taking cognisance of the second FIR against the associate professor.

On July 16, the apex court had pulled up the SIT for “misdirecting” its investigation 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 in the two FIRs registered against him by the Haryana police, and
had directed a three-member SIT probe, headed by an IG-rank officer, “who do not belong to the states of Haryana or Delhi.

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