The Supreme Court has been heard in the Supreme Court in the Professor Ali Khan Mohammad case of Ashoka University located in Sonepat. The professor of Ashoka University arrested in the case of alleged objectionable post on social media regarding Operation Sindoor
,
The court clarified that the professor is prohibited to write only on cases under consideration, they can write and express their opinion independently on other subjects. At the same time, the court questioned the investigation process of Haryana SIT and said that the investigation should be completed in four weeks and the professor should not be called again unnecessarily.
Prevent only cases under consideration, can write on others
The Supreme Court on Wednesday clarified that Ali Khan is prohibited to write on Mahmudabad only on subjects which are in judicial process. They are free to express their views and write on any other issue.
Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad is relieved from the Supreme Court.
SIT investigation told directionless
A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joylya Bagchi said that the SIT was “wandering from the direction” in its investigation. The court questioned why when the language of the post was to be examined, why the professor’s device needed to be confiscated. Justice Kant commented, saying, “You need a dictionary, not a professor.”
Instructions to complete SIT investigation in 4 weeks
The court clearly stated that the investigation was limited to only those two social media posts, on the basis of which an FIR was registered. The court directed the investigating agency that no longer needs to be summoned to the professor, as they have already cooperated and handed over their devices.
Questioning the investigation process of the SIT, he said that the investigation should be completed in 4 weeks.
‘Roving Inquiry’ cannot be: Sibal’s argument
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of the professor, said that the SIT is asking the professor for the last 10 years of foreign visits, while the Supreme Court order of May 28 had an order to investigate only two social media posts. He said that repeated interrogation and device seizure points to a ‘Roving Inquiry’, which is not appropriately.
State side: Independent independent freedom
The lawyer appearing on behalf of the state of Haryana argued how the investigation officer decides and investigation of all possible objectionable aspects is necessary. On this, the Supreme Court clarified that the scope of investigation should be limited to the order of the court.