SC Restrains Trial Court From Taking Cognisance of Chargesheet Against Ali Khan Mahmudabad
The Wire Staff
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (August 25, 2025) barred the trial court from taking cognisance of a chargesheet filed in an FIR against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also restrained the trial court from framing any charges in the case, reported Press Trust of India.
Earlier, a special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court to investigate the two FIRs against Mahmudabad had informed the bench that a closure report was filed in one of them while in the matter of another FIR, a chargesheet was filed on August 22 after making out some offences.
The top court also ordered the quashing of the FIR against Mahmudabad in which the SIT has filed the closure report.
Appearing for Mahmudabad, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, termed the filing of the charge sheet as "most unfortunate" and said that Mahmudabad has been booked under section 152 of BNS (sedition), whose validity is under challenge.
The court asked Sibal to go through the charge sheet and prepare a chart of the alleged offences. The court said that it would consider the submissions on the next date of hearing, said the PTI report.
Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 and slapped with charges that point to sedition, after the Haryana state women’s commission chief and a Bharatiya Janata Party worker filed police complaints against his social media posts on Operation Sindoor. In the posts, Mahmudabad had called for peace and noted how the optics of religious unity in two women soldiers of two religions presenting findings on India’s military efforts should also translate to reality on the ground.
On May 21, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Mahmudabad.
On July 16, the apex court had asked why the SIT was “misdirecting itself”. The bench asked this after Sibal, who was representing for Mahmudabad, said that the SIT had seized his devices and was asking him about foreign trips he had undertaken for the last 10 years.
“We just want to know from SIT…for what purpose they have seized devices? We will call them,” Justice Kant asked Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who was representing the government.
The bench had also said that the conditions imposed while granting interim bail only restrained Mahmudabad from commenting on sub-judice issues and the he was free to write or express opinions on other topics.
This article went live on August twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty five, at ten minutes past three in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.