People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has strongly criticized the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, calling it an infringement on constitutionally protected rights. The organization argues that his statements fall within the legal framework of discussion and advocacy, rather than incitement.
PUCL contends that the charges against Prof. Mahmudabad are unwarranted and emphasizes that India operates as a constitutional democracy grounded in the rule of law. Citing past Supreme Court rulings, PUCL reiterates that the advocacy of an issue, regardless of its popularity, is safeguarded under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The organization further stresses the importance of ensuring a diversity of viewpoints in the public sphere, underscoring the fundamental principles of free speech and expression in a democratic society.
Text of PUCL statement:
***
PUCL condemns the shocking arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, (Associate Professor at Ashoka University in Political Science) on 18th May, 2025, over his comments about the press briefings on Operation Sindoor. The comments come well within the constitutional right of the freedom of speech and expression and the FIR’s followed by arrest are an outrageous exercise of state power to trample the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Prof. Mahmudabad in his first post on the war had applauded the ‘care has been taken by the Indian armed forces to not target military or civilian installations or infrastructure so that there is no unnecessary escalation’ and strongly criticised Pakistan for using ‘militarised non-state actors to destabilise the region for far too long while also claiming to be victims on the international stage.’ Prof Mahmudabad went on to present an anti-war message noting that, ‘War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies.’
However, the point which seems to have triggered the FIR is a wilful and calculated misreading of his support for two women officers, one of whom was Colonel Sophia Qureishi who represented the Indian viewpoint in press briefings. He noted that the ‘optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.’ He went on to make the point that ‘many right-wing commentators [are] applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens.’
In his second post, Prof Mahmudabad criticized the ‘blind bloodlust for war’ and broke down what it meant to ‘call for a country to be wiped out.’ In his words that meant that, ‘the genocide of an entire people.’ He asked the question as to whether, we ‘really want to advocate the wholesale murder of children as potential future enemies?’
Based on Prof. Mahmudabad’s posts, two complaints were filed. One by Yogesh Jatheri, a leader of the BJP’s youth wing in Haryana and the other by Renu Bhatia, chairman of Haryana State Women’s Commission over his alleged absence regarding the summons issued by the Commission. The complaints triggered two FIR’s. In the complaint filed by Jatheri, these BNS sections in Section 196(1)B (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 197(1)C (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 152 (act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) and 299 (malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The second FIR, by Bhatia, was lodged under sections 353 (statements which intend to cause fear and alarm among the public), 79 (intend to insult the modesty of any woman), 152 (act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India).
A prima facie reading of the statement by Prof Mahmudabad and the legal provisions under which he has been arrested indicate that under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, ‘Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence’ should be reduced in writing and then a copy given to the complainant. There is nothing in the material to indicate that there is any information related to the cognizable offences which prejudice national unity, incites any offence or is derogatory to women. Further under Section 173(3)(ii) of the BNNS, the police officer is mandated to ‘proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.’ There is nothing to indicate that an FIR was warranted as per law or investigation and arrest were required. The police by not applying their mind to the facts and proceeding to arbitrarily arrest Prof Mahmudabad, have made a mockery of the constitutional right of the freedom of speech and expression. The police need to be reminded that India is not a police state, where anybody can be arrested on a whim, but rather a constitutional democracy based on rule of law.
Prof Mahmudabad himself wrote that, ‘this is a new form of censorship and harassment, which invents issues where there are none.’ By arresting someone who praises Indian officers for ‘anti national conduct’ and prosecuting someone who expresses appreciation of the work of Indian women officers for anti-women statements as well as persecuting someone for impairing national integrity for writing about the costs of war, the police are demonstrating the Orwellian dictum that in the new India, truth does not matter and that ‘war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength’.
In the seminal decision of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India the Court laid down the contours of the freedom of speech and expression. The Court held that:
"There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1) (a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in. It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, etc."
It is clear from the substance of Prof Mahmudabad’s statement, that his statement does not fall within the framework of ‘incitement’. It falls within the limits of the constitutionally protected categories of ‘discussion’ and ‘advocacy’ of an issue. The Supreme Court has unambiguously held that ‘advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1) (a)’ and as such deserves of the highest constitutional protection. Protecting viewpoints such as that articulated by Prof Mahmudabad’s is about ensuring that there is a diversity of viewpoints articulated by a diversity of persons in the Indian public sphere. This is indeed the beating heart of a democracy.
The FIR filed against him is nothing other than an attempt to chill the right to freedom of speech and expression and thereby homogenize the diversity of viewpoints in the Indian public sphere. Such FIR’s by chilling public expression will only impoverish our democracy.
The state by arresting Prof Mahmudabad is demonstrating that it cannot tolerate articulate Muslim voices which seem to challenge its narrative. The fact that Gulfisha Fatima, Umar Khalid, Kahlid Saifi are in jail and Nadeem Khan and Mohammad Zubair are being persecuted for acts of speech is unconscionable. Rejaz M Sydeek, student journalist from Kerala was arrested under the UAPA for dissenting speech. Aasif Sultan, Sajad Gul, Hilal Mir, Irfan Mehraj, Fahad Shah all journalists from Kashmir were also arrested under either the UAPA or the PSA. Khurram Parvez is a well-known human rights activist with the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) was also arrested under the UAPA for the ‘crime’ of speech. All of the above were journalists, writers, human rights activists, students or ordinary citizens who happened to be Muslim and were arrested for the crime of exercising their right under Article 19(1)(a). Their arrests only buttress the impression of a state which cannot tolerate dissent.
An example of the chilling effect of the FIR’s against Prof. Mahmudabad is the conduct of Ashoka University where Prof. Mahmudabad taught. The university sought to distance itself from Mahmudabad’s remarks by stating that the comments made on personal social media pages do not represent its opinion. It went on to state that, ‘Ashoka University and all members of the Ashoka community are proud of India’s armed forces and support them, unequivocally, in their actions towards maintaining national security. We stand in solidarity with the nation and our forces.’ It is telling that Ashoka University did not stand up for the sanctity of the constitutional right to freedom of expression or stand with a member of its faculty who was exercising his constitutional right to free speech but rather was willing to give credence to FIR’s which arbitrarily alleged that Prof. Mahmudabad had committed offences under Indian law.
However the Faculty Association of Ashoka University showed they were willing to stand up for the constitutional right of freedom of expression when they issued a statement in support of their arrested colleague noting that, they stand in ‘full support of our colleague: an invaluable member of the university community, a beloved and respected teacher and friend to his students, and a deeply responsible citizen, who brings all his energy and learning to promoting communal harmony and the greater good.’
At this juncture we must recall the words of Gandhiji who had said that, ‘We must first make good the right of free speech and free association before we can make any further progress towards our goal. […]We must defend these elementary rights with our lives. Liberty of speech means that it is unassailed even when the speech hurts…’
The words of Gandhiji find a resonance in the words of Justice Brandies of the US Supreme Court who opined that ‘those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. He concluded that, ‘the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people’ and ‘that public discussion is a political duty.’
The words of Prof Mahmudabad’s are nothing other than an advocacy of an anti-war viewpoint which demonstrates that he is willing to further ‘public discussion’ as the constitutional duty of a citizen. Hence, the FIR registered against him is arbitrary, unwarranted and anti-constitutional. It represents a calculated assault on the ideal of free speech which in Gandhiji’s thinking is the foundation of our democracy.
The PUCL demands that:
The state withdraw prosecution against Prof Mahmudabad.
- The police compensate Prof Mahmudabad for the unnecessary harassment and mental suffering caused by the arbitrary prosecution.
- The state repeals Section 152 of the BNS which brings back the sedition offence in a new garb and infringes on the freedom of speech and expression.
It is imperative that ‘we the people of India’, peacefully organise to stop such arbitrary police action and ensure the Indian state is held accountable for such violations of the constitution in letter and spirit.
-- Kavita Srivastava, President, Dr. V. Suresh, General Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
Comments