The Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case: Academic Freedoms and the Limits of Free Expression

Introduction

On May 18, 2025, Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor and head of Political Science at Ashoka University, was arrested by the Haryana Police for a social media post that critiqued the perceived symbolic optics of women officers leading the press conferences regarding India’s military strikes on Pakistan under the ‘Operation Sindoor’. The arrest, however, has once again sparked debate on the judicial limits on the freedom of academic expression and the criminalization of dissent in India.

Legal Background of the Case

In the impugned post, Mahmudabad had acknowledged India’s calibrated military response against Pakistan’s role in the Pahalgam terrorist attack. At the same time, he had cautioned against civilian casualties and jingoism. Importantly, in the latter half of the post, Mahmudabad had attempted to link the symbolic use of women officers in leading media briefings post ‘Operation Sindoor’ with broader concerns of systematic discrimination and communal violence. Here, he had highlighted an alleged disconnect between state optics and the ground realities, marking it as “hypocrisy”.

The primary objections raised by the complainant were (i) that the post had been framed in such a way as to deliberately create civil unrest within the country, (ii) that the dignity of the women officers Colonel Sophiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh had been attacked, and (iii) that the post breached UGC ethical guidelines.

On May 21, the Supreme Court, led by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, granted interim bail, subject to the condition that Mahmudabad would refrain from making any further social media posts regarding ‘Operation Sindoor’ or the Pahalgam incident. The oral observations made by the Justices, including references to “dog whistling” and “cheap publicity”, have themselves raised serious questions about the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

A Human Rights Perspective on the Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom

The right to freedom of expression is a foundational element of a democratic society, enshrined not only in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution but also in international human rights law, especially Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party.

Article 19(1) of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.” This right is absolute, and it cannot be restricted under any circumstances. Therefore, certain forms of censorship, such as the institutional chilling of dissent, may violate this right, especially in academic settings. In Mahmudabad’s case, the use of criminal law and judicial gag orders to limit his intellectual critique risks crossing that line.

Article 19(2) further guarantees the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”, across all media and regardless of frontiers. This includes the freedom to teach, research, publish, and participate in academic debate. As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has clarified, academic freedom includes the right to express controversial or dissenting views in research, classrooms, and public platforms, including informal spaces. This right can only be restricted based on either of the two grounds laid down under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR—namely, to protect the rights of others, or for the protection of national security and public order. 

The Johannesburg Principles on National Security and Freedom of Expression (1996) declare that criticism of government policy or military operations cannot be criminalised unless it incites “imminent violence”. Free expression cannot be restricted merely because it is provocative, unpopular, or hurts sentiments.

Within the Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court held in Shreya Singhal v Union of India that only speech inciting imminent violence or public disorder falls under the reasonable restrictions laid down under Articles 19(2) to 19(6). In Vishaka v State of Rajasthan and National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, it was affirmed by the Supreme Court that where international laws are not in direct conflict with municipal laws, and where a harmonious construction between the two is possible, the international laws would be deemed to be incorporated under the domestic law.

In Mahmudabad’s post, the language used falls within the ambit of protected academic expression. It does not incite violence, pose a threat to national security, or attack any individual in a personal or defamatory manner. The post’s tone is analytical and moral, not inflammatory. Under Article 19(1) and 19(2) of the ICCPR, the Johannesburg Principles, and the Indian Constitutional jurisprudence on free speech and expression, such speech is not only lawful but essential to a pluralistic society like India, where great value is placed on individual freedom.

Conclusion

The arrest and subsequent conditional bail of Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad show a worrying moment for academic freedom and free expression in India. Even though interim bail was granted by the Supreme Court, the moralistic tone used by the Court and its refusal to suspend the investigation reflect a broader institutional discomfort with dissent.

This case is not an isolated event but part of a wider trend in which universities are being increasingly subjected to ideological conformity. Academic freedom is steadily being restricted through legal intimidation and institutional pressures. This considerably reduces the capacity for critical thinking and intellectual discourse on important subjects. A democracy that respects and values pluralism must protect the freedom of its scholars and academicians, and not penalise them for asking difficult questions.