New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to hear today (October 27, 2025) a petition filed by Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor of political science at Ashoka University, challenging the FIRs registered against him for a Facebook post related to Operation Sindoor.WEET Cotton T-Shirt and Pyjama Set for Men,Night Wear for Men,Men's Pyjama Set 122

Case Background:

Operation Sindoor was India's retaliatory military operation against Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 civilian lives. In response, Mahmudabad posted on Facebook on May 8 and 11, 2025, criticizing Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, opposing war, and highlighting Colonel Sofia Qureshi's (the Indian Army officer who briefed on the operation) role. He urged right-wing supporters praising her to condemn mob lynchings and arbitrary property demolitions in India.Also Read; "Tales of transformation, pathway to Viksit Bharat"; by minister Nirmala seetharaman

The posts were deemed by authorities as potentially insulting to women officers in the armed forces, promoting communal disharmony, and threatening national sovereignty. This prompted two FIRs on May 17, 2025, at Rai Police Station in Sonipat, Haryana:

The first, filed on a complaint by BJP Yuva Morcha general secretary Yogesh Jatheri, invoked Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 197 (prejudicial to national integration), 152 (endangering sovereignty and integrity), and 299 (culpable homicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The second, by the Haryana State Commission for Women, alleged insult to women's modesty.

Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18, 2025, and initially remanded to judicial custody after a local court rejected police requests for extended remand.

August 25, 2025: The court stayed the trial court's cognizance of the chargesheet in one FIR (which included sedition-like Section 152 BNS, under constitutional challenge) after the SIT filed a closure report in the other and a chargesheet in this one. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal called the chargesheet "unfortunate."

Mahmudabad, represented by Kapil Sibal, maintains his posts were "entirely patriotic," lacking criminal intent, and ended with "Jai Hind." He argues they were misunderstood and violate free speech rights. The Haryana government and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju contend the remarks' sensitivity during national tensions justifies continued scrutiny, though one FIR saw a closure report.