Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad has once again come into the legal spotlight as he approaches the Supreme Court of India seeking the release of his passport, which was surrendered as a condition of his interim bail. The Court, however, adjourned the matter till November 18, 2025, keeping the academic community and legal observers watching closely.
Who Is Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad?
Prof. Mahmudabad is an Associate Professor of Political Science and History at Ashoka University, known for his scholarship on political philosophy, Urdu poetry, and issues related to identity, religion, and nationalism in South Asia.
Earlier this year, he was booked by the Haryana Police for his social media posts related to “Operation Sindoor,” which authorities alleged contained remarks capable of disturbing communal harmony and threatening national security. His arrest sparked a nationwide debate about academic freedom, free speech, and the new sedition-like provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
What Happened in the Supreme Court Today?
On October 27, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea regarding Prof. Mahmudabad’s passport release.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the professor and urged the bench to direct authorities to return the passport, which was deposited as a bail condition.
“In the meantime, let the passport be returned to him. I don’t know why the passport is kept,” said Sibal, arguing that the State of Haryana had no real objection to Prof. Mahmudabad’s travel abroad.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for Haryana, clarified that the State would not oppose foreign travel if the professor simply submitted his itinerary before leaving.
The bench, however, deferred the matter to November 18, remarking that Mahmudabad was “not travelling tomorrow itself.”
Background: From Arrest to Interim Bail
The case dates back to May 2025, when Prof. Mahmudabad was arrested by the Haryana Police for allegedly posting comments that could “incite disharmony” and “threaten the sovereignty of India.” He was charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 152 BNS, which effectively replaces the colonial-era Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (the old sedition law).
On May 21, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to the professor but imposed several strict conditions:
- He must surrender his passport.
- He cannot write or post anything related to the Operation Sindoor incident or any terror attacks and India’s counter-responses.
- He must fully cooperate with the investigation and join questioning whenever required.
The Court also directed the Haryana DGP to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior IPS officers from outside Haryana and Delhi to ensure neutrality in the probe.
Controversy Around the Investigation
Soon after the bail order, Mahmudabad’s legal team alleged that the SIT was overreaching its mandate. During a July hearing, Kapil Sibal informed the Court that the SIT had seized the professor’s digital devices and was asking irrelevant questions about his foreign trips from the past ten years.
This prompted Justice Surya Kant to rebuke the police and say, “You don’t require him, you require a dictionary.” The bench reminded the SIT that its investigation should focus only on the two social media posts mentioned in the FIRs.
In August 2025, the Haryana Police informed the Supreme Court that it had filed a closure report in one FIR and a chargesheet in the other. Taking note, the Court quashed the FIR where closure was filed and stayed proceedings in the other.
However, it left the bail conditions—including the passport surrender—intact, asking for a “cooling-off period” before considering any relaxation.
Why the Passport Issue Matters
The current plea is specifically about returning the surrendered passport. Prof. Mahmudabad has cooperated with the investigation, and with one FIR already closed, his legal team argues that continuing to hold his passport serves no purpose.
From a broader perspective, this issue goes beyond one individual’s travel rights. It reflects the tension between the State’s interest in investigation and a citizen’s right to movement and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Many legal experts argue that passport retention should not be punitive, especially when the accused has not violated bail conditions and has been cooperating with authorities.
Sections Invoked Against the Professor
Prof. Mahmudabad’s case falls under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including:
- Section 152 – Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
- Section 196 – Statements or actions prejudicial to harmony.
- Section 79 – Words or gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty.
Kapil Sibal has already told the Court that Section 152 BNS is itself under constitutional challenge, as many lawyers and scholars believe it re-introduces sedition through new terminology.
Free Speech and Academic Freedom Debate
The arrest of a university professor for social media posts triggered widespread criticism from academics, rights groups, and free-speech advocates.
Many view this as part of a worrying trend where academic expression and criticism of government policy are met with criminal proceedings under national-security or harmony laws.
The Supreme Court’s interim gag order, which restrains Mahmudabad from commenting on terrorism or related matters, also sparked debate about self-censorship and academic autonomy in India’s universities.
However, the Court has maintained that the case requires a “cooling-off period” and careful balance between free expression and responsible speech.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will hear the matter again on November 18, 2025, when it may finally decide whether to release Prof. Mahmudabad’s passport.
The Court is also expected to review the status of the SIT investigation, which had been directed to conclude within four weeks but has since faced delays.
Depending on the outcome, the decision could set an important precedent for future bail conditions, especially in cases involving speech-related offences under the new BNS.
Why This Case Is Important
- For Free Speech: It tests how far citizens, especially academics, can go in expressing opinions on sensitive national issues.
- For Legal Reform: It highlights the early implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, India’s new criminal code replacing the IPC.
- For Civil Liberties: It raises vital questions about the extent of restrictions courts can impose while granting bail.
- For Education: It reignites discussion on the freedom of Indian academics to speak on politics, religion, and conflict without fear of reprisal.
Conclusion
The Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad passport case is not just about a document—it’s about liberty, expression, and the role of law in protecting or restricting both.
With one FIR already quashed and another under judicial pause, the focus now shifts to whether the Supreme Court will lift travel restrictions and allow the professor to resume his academic and professional commitments freely.
As the next hearing on November 18 approaches, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to see whether it reaffirms its commitment to personal freedom and academic independence—or continues the cautious, conditional approach it has followed so far.
Also Read
