Supreme Court Questions Haryana Over Sedition Case Against Historian Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad
Top court asks state government to consider closing case filed over 2020 tweet as academic faces multiple FIRs across states
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Haryana government about whether proceedings in a sedition case against historian and political scientist Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad can be closed, signaling judicial concern over the prosecution of the academic.
The case stems from a 2020 tweet by Prof Mahmudabad, who teaches at Ashoka University, which led to multiple FIRs being filed against him in different states including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh.
During the hearing, the apex court sought the Haryana government’s response on potentially quashing the case, raising questions about the continuation of criminal proceedings against the professor. The court’s intervention comes amid growing concerns about the use of sedition charges against academics and intellectuals for expressing opinions on social media.
Prof Mahmudabad, a descendant of the royal family of Mahmudabad and a respected scholar specializing in South Asian politics and history, has been facing legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions over the same social media post. His legal team has argued that the FIRs amount to harassment and have a chilling effect on academic freedom and free speech.
The Supreme Court’s query to the state government indicates the judiciary’s scrutiny of whether the case warrants continuation, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court observations on the misuse of sedition laws. The court had previously put the controversial sedition provision on hold and directed that no fresh FIRs be registered under the colonial-era law.
The matter has drawn attention from academic circles and civil liberties groups, who have raised concerns about the criminalization of dissent and its impact on scholarly discourse in the country.
The Haryana government is expected to file its response, after which the court will hear further arguments on whether the case should be allowed to continue or be closed.
The next hearing in the matter is awaited as the court seeks clarity on the state’s position regarding the prosecution of the academic.
