Mahmudabad probe shows SIT in a poor light

THE task of analysing, interpreting or decoding a couple of social media posts shouldn’t take too long — especially if they are written neither in Greek nor Latin. However, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up on the Supreme Court’s orders in the case against Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad is taking its own sweet time completing a seemingly straightforward job. It’s been more than a month and a half since the SIT was formed to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used” in the academic’s posts related to Operation Sindoor.

Writing in plain English, Mahmudabad had drawn attention to the grassroots reality faced by common Muslims — mob lynchings, bulldozer action, etc. — and the hypocrisy of right-wing commentators. He had simply exercised his fundamental right to freedom of speech, without crossing any red line, but the Haryana State Commission for Women came down on him like a ton of bricks. Acting with unusual swiftness, the police arrested him on the charge of endangering, no less, the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The apex court granted him interim bail, but did not stay the investigation.

Ironically, the SIT is now itself under scrutiny. The court has taken a serious note of the probe team going to the extent of seizing cellphones and other electronic gadgets. In a classic example of misplaced priorities, the SIT has sought time to examine the gadgets’ forensic lab report, even though all it needs to do is consult an English dictionary. In any case, expressions like war-mongering and hate-mongering are self-explanatory. The three-member team should confine itself to going through Mahmudabad’s posts to ascertain whether their content constitutes offences mentioned in the FIRs. The onus is on the court to ensure that overzealousness is not used as a pretext to muzzle free speech.

Editorials