- 5/21/2025
The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his social media post on Operation Sindoor, but barred him from speaking or writing about the case.
Category
đ
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching To The Point. I'm Preeti Choudhury. Our top story comes
00:05in from the top court of the country. Professor Ali Khan today was given interim bail after
00:11he was arrested by the Haryana police, but at the same time, he was given kind of a dressing
00:17down by the top court of the country. What does it really mean for freedom of expression
00:21in India? That's our big debate. First up, allow me to take you through the headlines.
00:29First group of MPs led by Sanjay Jha leads for interaction with Five Nations delegation
00:34to expose Pakistan-sponsored terror India set to isolate Pak globally.
00:47Confessions of Jyoti accessed, admits to Pakistan ISI link, confesses to secret
00:52chats with Pak spies. Jyoti hid ISI contacts under fake names.
01:05Big relief coming in for Ashoka University professor. Supreme Court grants bail to
01:09Professor Mahmudabad, gags professor from speaking to media or writing about his
01:15operations in the post.
01:23China-Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand economic corridor to Afghanistan.
01:28Announcement after Pakistan Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Khan meets Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.
01:34Sensational claims by ED in the National Herald case. Sources say Rahul Gandhi used public money
01:47personally. ED finds Sonia role in money laundering. All of this attributed to
01:52enforcement directorate sources. Big win in fight against Naxals, Prime Minister and Home
02:04Minister hail successful Chhattisgarh Ops that eliminated 27 dreaded Naxal leaders.
02:10Shah says India will be Naxal free by 2026.
02:34All right viewers, what was a significant development that came in from the top court of the country,
02:40the Supreme Court, where it granted interim bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan
02:47Mahmudabad all over his social media post and operations in Doord. The top court however
02:53refused to stay the investigation in the case. The professor has been barred from writing or
02:58speaking publicly about his operations in Doord post and is also prohibited from engaging with
03:03the media. While granting the interim relief, a bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice N.K. Singh
03:09blasted the professor for his timing of his remark, calling it dog whistling and an attempt
03:15to get cheap publicity. The court said while everyone had freedom of speech, such occasions
03:21like the India-Pakistan tensions should not be used to garner publicity. It's interesting
03:27where this observation comes in from the top court of the country because there has been a
03:33massive debate in the aftermath of the arrest of professor Ali Khan, whether this was his arrest
03:41and attack on freedom of speech. I want to cut across to Aneesha and then we're going to cut
03:46across and give a larger understanding to our viewers on how it all panned out. But Aneesha,
03:51would you give us details because you know there's a fair amount of backdrop to it all
03:55when professor Ali Khan was arrested. Lots of conversation, commentary on whether this was an
04:01assault on freedom of speech because clearly his social media posts at least didn't seem
04:06to be seditious in nature or in any what way enrage the modesty of women at all. Give us
04:16the latest that's coming. Well Preeti, these are questions that are being asked repeatedly with
04:22regard to how exactly has professor Khan's comment on social media either been seditious
04:29or outraged the modesty of women. In fact even today the supreme court while hearing this matter
04:35questioned the Haryana government where is the statement that insults the women officers, what
04:41exactly has he said in his post that insults the women officers because remember that is why
04:47the Haryana commission for women had filed a complaint against him saying or for the
04:53charges of outraging modesty of women but apart from that the two charges against him are for
04:58sedition and fomenting enmity between communities both of which the Haryana police claims that it
05:06is investigating. Today the court looked at the entire post, looked at all of the things that
05:13were said and said well it looks to us that he's trying to be anti-war, it looks to us that he's
05:20trying to say that war is bad for people, for soldiers, for their families, for civilians but
05:25what was the need to say such a thing at a time when India is going through crisis. That seems to
05:31be the hinge on which the court has questioned professor Khan today. However interim bail of
05:40course has been granted the court has additionally gagged him from making any further social media
05:45posts not just on this particular issue but also on the issue of Pakistan's terror attack and India's
05:52response to it at completely. Additionally a question being asked by the court why are people
05:58making such comments when India is in the time of crisis. If you look at the order that has been
06:03passed, SIT has been constituted with a headed by a IG level officer, superintendent level officers
06:11will be part of this SIT. What is interesting is the fact that when the court asked the Haryana
06:17government where is the statement that actually insults the women officers, the Haryana government
06:22did not have an answer. They sought time and now the hearing will be on the 28th of May but this
06:29issue has raised the whole debate across the country on what exactly is freedom of expression,
06:36what exactly is the role of the charges of sedition and fomenting enmity and outraging
06:43modesty of women in an issue like this. Especially with the court also saying why are people talking
06:50about freedom of expression, why are they not talking about their duty and why is it that so
06:55many people are making comments in the middle of a national crisis. That is where the question
07:00comes in what exactly is going to be the supreme court's interpretation of these charges especially
07:07as this is a professor who's saying that it was an entirely patriotic comment meant to raise this
07:13issue of communal harmony or communal disharmony in the country. Back to you. You know Anisha while
07:20clearly this observation raises some serious questions on the contours of how India should
07:25perceive freedom of speech and academic freedom but having said that give us you know the
07:33information on this being the same bench that also heard the tribal affairs minister from Madhya
07:39Pradesh Mr. Shah's statement and the statement that he made which was highly derogatory to the
07:46two women officers or rather Colonel Qureshi in question. Well yes this is an interesting point
07:53and this is going to be a very interesting debate to watch really Preeti because on the 28th of May
07:59both these matters will come back to the supreme court before the same judge's bench.
08:06Question being asked now how exactly is the police, the administration, the courts really
08:12interpreting these sections? Remember both of these cases of the minister and of the professor
08:20involve FIRs against these persons for sedition, for creating enmity between communities and
08:29for outraging modesty of women. These are the three charges against both these persons but
08:33the tone, tenor and the statement itself made by both of these persons is very very different.
08:40What the minister said from a public stage was something that compared.
08:47Anisha before I cut across to the entire story I want to ask you a very quick question. So the same
08:51bench for professor Ali Khan has a of course given him interim bail but gagged him from making any
08:59statements. On the account of the minister Mr. Vijay Shah the same bench has not gagged him
09:06and has given him relief from arrest. Well that's completely correct but we need to also see
09:15what the observations made by the bench in both of these cases is. What is interesting as you said
09:21the question we ask about freedom of expression specifically is a big question mark because
09:28the minister has not been gagged. The minister was questioned. You are in a position of
09:33responsibility. You are somebody who people look up to. You are somebody who's a sitting minister
09:40so why did you not act more responsibly? Why did you make such statements? For the professor who's
09:45made a social media post which has gone viral, he is told you will not make any statements whether
09:53on this particular issue that has happened to you or even on the general question of Hindu
09:59park relations or the terror attack. This is going to raise a lot of questions as to how
10:05courts are looking into this issue. Back to you. Exactly and that's what you know what we wanted
10:09to touch on because what's really happened is it's the same exactly the same bench of the supreme
10:14court. At one end the same bench has given relief to both professor Shah by giving him interim bail
10:22and on the other hand to the tribal affairs minister as well by staying his arrest giving
10:27him relief from arrest. On the other hand while the same bench has gagged professor Khan has not
10:34passed any corresponding order of the same kind for the tribal affairs minister. One can only
10:41look on what exactly they both had said and how it was perceived. I want to take you through the
10:47course of events. Here goes. Two social media posts landed Ashoka University professor Ali
10:56Khan Mehmoodabad in jail. Facing charges of sedition, outraging modesty of women by
11:04allegedly attacking the two officers, the faces of operation Sindoor. What resulted was a nationwide
11:11debate. What was it that professor said? Was it an assault on academic expression?
11:18Was it an assault on freedom of speech? On Wednesday the top court, the bench of justices
11:26Surya Kanth and N. Koteshwar Singh granted interim bail but also schooled professor Khan.
11:35Why make political comment during national crisis? You claim freedom of expression,
11:40what about duty of nation? Why veer into politics? Why gain cheap popularity on this occasion?
11:48This is what is called dog whistling. You have a right to express without hurting others. Use
11:55terms which is simple, respectful and not hurtful to others. Why make a social media statement at
12:01all? The supreme court in its order did grant interim bail but also said
12:08Supreme court gagged professor Khan to not post or write on the issue. No comment to be made by
12:15professor on the terror attack recently faced by the country. Haryana to set up three member SIT.
12:23Police to clarify what statement insulted women. The court also questioned the Haryana government.
12:32Where is the statement in the post which insulted women officers?
12:35The government lawyer did not have any answers and asked for time. The same bench on Monday had
12:41passed a order in the case of MP minister Vijay Shah who communally charged public speech was
12:47criticized heavily. The same bench had directed the Madhya Pradesh police to set up an SIT
12:54to investigate the case against the tribal affairs minister of Madhya Pradesh but did not pass any
13:00gag order like with professor Khan. Professor Mehmoodabad will likely to be released from jail
13:10date Thursday and the court will take up his plea against the FIR now on Friday. In the meantime,
13:16the Haryana police have questioned foreign travel by the Oxford educated professor
13:22and asked for his bank details and passport. While the top courts order giving interim relief
13:28to professor Khan but also cracking down on him for his posts leaves a larger question
13:34to be addressed. What impact will the court's order have on freedom of expression in India?
13:42Bureau report India Today.
13:59Ratan Nigam, Advocate, Supreme Court. Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court.
14:04Jai Anand Dehadrai, Advocate, Supreme Court. The question that we ask is very clear on what came
14:10off the top court today. What impact could this have on how freedom of expression and academic
14:17freedom is perceived in the country? I want to cut across first to Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate.
14:26You know, it's interesting with what the court observed today. And in that context, because,
14:32you know, it seems that the Indian legal system is a bit of a potluck. You can go with exactly
14:38the same case, or, you know, the same charges, and you can get very, very varied and very, very
14:44different orders or judgments. And I'll give you a case in example, you know, maybe not for
14:50sedition, but for freedom of speech. If you actually look at Imran Pratap Gadi's case,
14:55which happened just about a month ago, you know, one would hear that judgment and one would look
15:01at the observations today of the top court and both coming in from the top court, and you walk
15:05away, I would think very, very confused. Well, that was a judgment. Today's is an order.
15:14And there is no judgment yet. Today, the court was confronted with a situation where the man
15:20was in jail for a social media post. There was no violence which ensued. Was it sedition? Was
15:27it not sedition? It's still a matter of investigation. What the court has done is
15:34appointed a new investigating team. It has turned down the Haryana government's plea for some more
15:42time because if it had adjourned the matter to Friday and they're asking, Professor Khan would
15:48probably have been in prison for two days more or God knows how long. So it has granted an
15:55immediate interim bail. Yes, just like Professor Khan's post could have been worded better.
16:02Some of the observations of the court can be read in more than one way. But for the moment,
16:10what matters is that it has granted immediate bail to Professor Khan and
16:17it has imposed certain conditions which are normal bail conditions. I would think that
16:24Professor Khan's team would be satisfied with getting their client out for today.
16:29The larger battle may follow on a different day. But you know, Mr. Hegde, tell me something,
16:35the sheer fact that the court touched more on the timing of the post rather than the legality
16:41of the post. And that seemed to be made very clear, at least, you know, in the order. What does
16:47it suggest? Yeah, see, you were right about Imran Pratap Gadi and some others who got
16:56not only relief, but they got a large judgment in time. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court
17:04is a polyvocal court. Sometimes it's said that there are 17 courtrooms in the Supreme Court,
17:10and there are 17 Supreme Courts. Yes, the consistency, especially in judgments,
17:21is followed, but consistency in orders, sometimes is the luck of the draw.
17:26I may have cause to disagree with what the court expressed during the course of argument,
17:35but then it's often a matter of tonality than anything else.
17:41You know, fair point. You know, stay on with me, sir. I want to cut across
17:46right now to Jai Anand Dehadra. You know, Mr. Dehadra, it's interesting because with what I
17:53said earlier, it seems to be actually potluck where the Indian legal system is concerned.
17:57And, you know, why we bring up this particular case, and I'll just give our viewers an example
18:01of what we were, I was having a conversation with our, my colleague who covers courts,
18:07because it's the same bench that is also hearing the Tribal Affairs Minister, Madhya Pradesh,
18:13Vijay Shah's case. And in that case, A, they have given him relief from arrest, and B,
18:21there is no gag order on him from the court. On the contrary, you have a Professor Khan,
18:26where there is a gag order, and there is an interim relief, but the FIR is not quashed.
18:31So it's interesting, because if you actually look at, you know, what Professor Khan said,
18:37and what the Tribal Affairs Minister said, you know, one could think it's diametrically very,
18:42very different. Preeti ji, good evening. And firstly, thank you for having me on your show.
18:47And I wanted to compliment you for your fantastic interview with Renu Bhatia yesterday,
18:51I think that was. I think all of us, we really appreciated, you know, your line of questioning
18:56and the patience with which you brought out a lot of very disturbing patterns of thinking that
19:01Ms. Bhatia had. So having said that, I think the Supreme Court today, Preeti ji, has taken an
19:05excellent decision. It is a balanced decision. Article 21 guarantees a person's liberty. And
19:11I think that has been upheld today, which is very important. And you know, here's the thing,
19:15Justice Suryakant, according to me, is an extremely, extremely sharp, sharp judge. And
19:20he alluded to certain double meaning, you know, a possible interpretation that could have been
19:26made out of Professor Khan's statement that could have more than one meaning. And if you could have
19:31the same paragraph that you were in fact referring to yesterday, and if you would have that in front
19:35of you for a moment, and I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment. If you see the last
19:38paragraph of Professor Khan's statement that he put out on social media, he talks about this
19:44illusion and allusion to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built. And,
19:50you know, he prefaces this remark with certain remarks about Colonel Qureshi. Now, why should
19:55we take away from the fact that Colonel Qureshi is a very respected, meritorious member of the
20:02armed forces? Why bring in her religion in this entire discussion at all? And perhaps this is
20:08what the Supreme Court was referring to today, rightly according to me also to say that, look,
20:13if there is a question of investigation, let the investigating agencies have a go at it as well.
20:18But certainly, in the meantime, they put a line of questioning to the lawyers who were appearing
20:22for Haryana and for the Union of India to explain what was it that was really offensive in his
20:26statement. So, if you ask me personally, I don't find anything remotely seditious in what
20:32Professor Khan has said. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's his personal opinion.
20:36Yes, in terms of tonality, timing, and these are also factors that a court, a constitutional court
20:42has to be alive to, which they were today, I think, and which is why perhaps the Honorable
20:46Supreme Court brought up this aspect that why bring it up right now when India is going through
20:49a crisis. But having said that, I think, insofar as we are concerned today, as Mr. Hegre also,
20:57I think, very rightly points out, it's only an order. It's an interim order. There are some
21:00questions. There is a line of questioning that the Supreme Court often puts forward. It doesn't
21:05reflect their final view. And they are trying to elicit some answers from the councils appearing
21:10for the various parties. So, insofar as this is concerned, I think, this is where we are right
21:15now. I think it's a correct decision to grant him interim bail. Ms. Nandy, I want to bring you in
21:20because, you know, I would reckon there should, or there is, you know, and correct me if I'm wrong,
21:24because you're four legal experts, that there is a fine line between tonality and legality. And I
21:29would reckon the courts should, or, you know, read legality than tonality. And the second part of it,
21:35with what Mr. Dehadra has said, if you hear what Justice Oka said when he was hearing Imran
21:41Pratap Garhi's case, leave alone that, just today, Justice Oka, when hearing a case on sedition,
21:46actually made it very clear that ideology cannot be seditious. It has to be action.
21:51Intent cannot be seditious. It has to be action. If you apply all of that to this particular
21:57observation, you know, and I don't know because, you know, we are not criticizing or attaching
22:02motive to anything, but I'm a tad bit confused. I think your question is a very sharp question,
22:13which is that, why are we looking at tonality rather than legality? I think the thing to
22:21remember is that sometimes, in the recent past, in fact, we have had a number of Supreme Court
22:29orders, judgments, Maneka Gandhi is one example of that, the judgment, where you have a lot that
22:36is said, but the relief is not granted. So today we have a situation where, rather than issuing
22:44notice, rather than keeping the man in jail for two additional days, rather than saying, look, you go
22:50back to the High Court, the Supreme Court today has, for a petitioner that went directly to the
22:56Supreme Court, has granted interim bail. This is not a small thing, right? Umar Khalid didn't get it,
23:03a number of other people didn't get it. Of course, this is a very different case because this is
23:07a speech offense on the face of it. But I think you're right to raise a few questions, perhaps
23:15born out of your reading of former Supreme Court judgments in cases like Rangarajan, for example,
23:21that says that the speech must be a spark in a powder keg to fall foul of criminal provisions
23:30and to be accused of disrupting public order. Even if we take the situation in the surrounding
23:36context to be one of war, was Professor Mehmoodabad's speech that spark in a powder keg? Perhaps not.
23:44In Sher-Singhal, for example, the court said information that may be grossly offensive or which
23:50causes annoyance or inconvenience is still protected an innocent speech. A person may
23:58discuss or even advocate by means of writing disseminated over the internet, information that
24:04may be a view, a point of view pertaining to government, governmental, literary, scientific,
24:09literary, scientific or other matters which may be unpalatable to certain sections of society.
24:16And it may be grossly offensive to some, it is still protected speech. Today, we have the man
24:22is out on interim bail. I think that is the main thing. This is only an interim order and it's the
24:30first hearing. In the Randhir and Abadiah case as well, the order was modified. And let us also
24:37remember that the gag is only on speaking to the particular issues that emerge from this case. So,
24:47the gag is not more expensive than that. So, in view of Rangarajan, in view of Sher-Singhal,
24:53there is the hope that the court will modify the order that has been passed today with regard to
24:59the conditions as the case moves forward. But we also must remember that the process is the
25:06British government. Ms. Nandy, in all of this, you know, other than just a gag order on,
25:10you know, Professor Khan or not speaking, writing about his case or Operation Sindoor,
25:17there is also a message, a larger message which comes in for private university and students
25:23that they should not get into doing anything wrong or saying anything wrong.
25:29What do you make of that? Where you juxtapose it with freedom of speech and expression?
25:35So, a lot of things are said in court which do not find their way into orders.
25:40That comment did not, as far as I can see, find its way into an order. For better or for worse,
25:46these things are now live streamed. And I think that there may be a bit of a lag between the
25:50live streaming and judges then being more specific about what they are saying with regard to the case.
25:59All right. I want to bring in Desh Ratan Nigam into this conversation because, you know,
26:05Mr. Desh Ratan Nigam, this is an observation once again. It's an, you know, observation where
26:09interim bail has been granted, interim relief has been granted. The quashing of FIR hasn't quite
26:17happened and we want to give our viewers context to it because the hearing for that is only on
26:20Friday, which is the 28th. You know, so that will happen later. So that wasn't even in question.
26:26But the sheer fact, sir, you know, if such observations become precedence,
26:33then are we looking at a norm of self-censorship?
26:39Well, Preeti, in fact, we do hear a lot of observations when the hearings are going on in
26:45court, which are not reflected in court, but they do give the intention of the courts. And certainly
26:51the FIR has not been a state and the investigation will go on. And the very important word which is
26:56used is dog whistling. Dog whistling is a concept where coded messages are intended for a particular
27:03section, which others do not understand. So that is a very important thing. Issues like
27:09benefit, this war is taking place for the benefit of politicians and arms manufacturers. India is
27:15also an arms manufacturer. A number of homegrown systems were used in this particular, you know,
27:22operation Sindhu. So these are, whether these are coded messages or not, they require, there is a
27:27deep complexity and also deep investigations are required, which is why an SIT has been created
27:33with a lot of impartiality because the officers of Haryana and Delhi will not be a part of the SIT.
27:40So those things have been taken care of. And also trying to give a communal angle and the
27:45right and left angle that only right wing was praising Colonel Sophia, which in my opinion
27:51was not the case. He clearly establishing himself as a leftist. So there are a lot of hidden and
27:56deep meaning out there and this requires a deep investigation. Therefore, investigation has also
28:01not been a state and rightly so. Yes, interim bail has been granted, certainly yes. And another
28:06important aspect is that rights and duties are co-terminus. Rights are not, and it's a very
28:14important message. You don't forget your duties. No, I agree. I agree Deshrata Nigam. It's a very
28:20important message and it can, like I said, be a message which could result in a fair amount of,
28:27you know, like I pointed out, it's kind of chilling in nature because it will result in
28:32self-censorship, you know, for many. But Karuna Nandy, you wanted to come in and I'll go back to
28:37Mr. Hegde. I just wanted to say that when a speech offence is indicative of something deeper or
28:52something of a larger conspiracy, that's one issue. But when the speech offence is just
28:59being prosecuted on the basis of the speech itself, then perhaps the only thing that the
29:08SIT needs to focus on is the interpretation of words like illusion and allusion. In fact,
29:17in the same court, the word, we use the word allusion a lot because, you know, this judgment
29:21alludes to, this paragraph alludes to, it means refers to, right? But should the speech
29:30indicate that there's some greater conspiracy? That's one thing. But if the speech is just
29:35being prosecuted because the speech itself was found to be offensive, then the SIT should just
29:40focus on the words and go back to the court and say, this is what we think the words mean.
29:46And this is the context. There was a conflict going on and we thought that this wasn't right.
29:51And then let the court decide based on the slew of constitutional judgments,
29:57including Imran Pratap Reddy, that must guide it.
30:02You know, Mr. Deshratan, okay. Go ahead, Mr. Dehadra, go ahead and I'll go to Mr. Hegde after
30:08that. Very quickly. I'll come to the both of you. Whoever wants to go first. Mr. Dehadra,
30:16if you want to go first, go ahead. Thank you. I'll be very brief. You know,
30:19personally, I think Mr. Khan, of course, has all his rights in place and he can make whatever
30:23comment or opinion that he deems appropriate. But if you ask me, the tone and tenor of what
30:28he has said is extremely sanctimonious. It's preachy. It was unnecessary. If you look at
30:33one of the paragraphs where he says that those who are advocating mindlessly for war and so on
30:37and so forth. What was mindless about this skirmish that India had with Pakistan? There's
30:41nothing mindless about it. You had terrorists coming in from Pakistan butchering innocent
30:46Indians. This has been happening for decades. And then finally, the Indian government decides
30:50to do something about it. And you have this gentleman sort of coming in and making this post.
30:54I'm not saying even for a moment that he doesn't have the right to say this, which is why I made
30:59that very clear in the beginning. I'm one of the first few individuals who have spoken out
31:02against his arrest. I'm not saying he should be kept in custody even for a moment. I mean,
31:06I'm not for thought crime. But the post and what the Supreme Court has said ties in very closely
31:11to what Mr. Nigam has said right now that there may be a requirement for a larger investigation.
31:17Let it happen. Let there be an investigation. I agree with what Ms. Nandi also says very rightly
31:23that often the process is the punishment. She's right. And nobody wishes that for him.
31:29But there could be elements and aspects of what he said that are deeply problematic.
31:34You know, that could be problematic because that's interpretation, Mr. Dehadra.
31:38And that's interpretation. And interpretation is subjective. So that's where you come down to the
31:42legality of it or the interpretation of it. You're right, it is subjective. I don't
31:44disagree with you. That's what I'm saying. It is subjective. But one moment. If I may just say one
31:49more thing. I'm so sorry I'm interrupting you. But if I may just say one thing. You're right,
31:53it is subjective. But if you would kindly go to the last paragraph again, and this is the paragraph
31:58that deals with this aspect about Colonel Qureshi's religion. It is really, he is alluding to the fact
32:04and therefore, the right wing, which he of course refers to only as Hindus, should, you know,
32:08somehow speak out against these supposed atrocities being committed against Muslims.
32:13What does he mean by that? And he also refers to, you know, the two-nation theory and why Pakistan
32:18was created as a theocracy. Is he therefore suggesting that India is also now veering
32:22toward⊠But that's interpretation, Mr. Dehadra. All of this is in the realms of interpretation.
32:27No, he's not saying that. You're interpreting it as that. I want to just, you know, I'm going
32:31to come back to you. And I want to, allow me to, allow me to⊠But sir, that is possibly your
32:38interpretation of it. Because he's saying what he's saying. We can agree to disagree with each
32:44other, but this is how I'm reading it. I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing. All I'm just saying
32:48is this is not what he's saying. That's your interpretation of it. Very well. Very well.
32:51Okay. I want to, allow me to go back right now. I want to bring in, Desh Ratna Nigam has a point.
32:56You wanted to come in for a counter and I'll go back to Mr. Hegde and Karunanandi. Make your point,
33:00Mr. Nigam. The fact is what SIT should do or not do will be open to them. When an investigation
33:07happens, though they check the entire background, the past records, whether something has been done
33:12in the past and they try to build the chain of events to the present. And this is how
33:16investigation go on. They may not be only focusing as suggested only on this particular Facebook
33:21post. And secondly, the concerned professor clearly forgot the massacre at Pahalgam was
33:27on the basis of religion where Hindus were massacred by Islamic terrorists. He clearly
33:32undermines all that and wishy-washy that. So there isn't an intention which can be
33:38gleaned out of this entire issue. What is the intention? I fail to understand that,
33:43but having said that, I'll come back to you, sir. I want to bring in Mr. Hegde and Karunanandi back
33:48into this conversation because Mr. Hegde, I'll hop back again, like I said, to what at least
33:54on the basis of freedom of expression was said on Imran Pratap Garhi's case. Because when you
33:58look at the verdict, you think that's a landmark verdict which safeguards freedom of expression
34:02and academic freedom in this country. On the other hand, if I look at the observations,
34:07and once again, these are observations as interim in nature as they can be,
34:11but the messaging is very clear because the top court did use dog whistle. Dog whistle clearly
34:18seems to suggest I would reckon in this case is malicious intent. So what is the messaging that
34:23goes down to somebody, you know, who's on social media otherwise will now look at self-censorship
34:31at the cost of repeating myself? Well, that is the danger that the Supreme Court possibly has
34:38fallen into. I see two dangers from what has happened today. Firstly, it will embolden the
34:44Reno Batyas of the world. And every little tinpot dictator with a fiefdom will feel emboldened to
34:51go after everybody whose opinions differ with her, her or him and say, okay, let's see in the
34:58police station, let me get you locked up by a friendly policeman and you beg for liberty in
35:04the courts. That's one danger. The second danger is, as you said, of the chilling effect. All of
35:12us will possibly be self-censoring. And, you know, in the words of Firat Gorakhpuri,
35:19So we will all be speaking less. And when you speak less, when you decide that there are
35:35certain topics with which you will not engage, then you will think less. We will be a nation
35:44of silent, nodding people. And that is the real danger. Freedom of speech is not required for
35:52popular speech. You do not need constitutional protection to say that the Prime Minister is a
35:58great man. You need constitutional protection when you think that your leaders have messed up,
36:07when you say that this has gone wrong or that this country has made these following mistakes.
36:14Then, even if the world is against you, the judges of the constitutional courts as
36:23sentinels on the queevee have to come to the aid of the citizen who is being attacked.
36:30That is the job function. And sometimes I do not see that zealousness to defend free speech.
36:40We often get into these definitions of this is, you should not have said this
36:48to again quote Rahat Indori,
36:54So we have the right to say what we think and the right to think what we say.
37:02After that, if you find that it violates contempt of court, it violates defamation,
37:08or it violates any other law which has been validly made, please take me to court and go
37:14through the legal process. Here we have got the wrong end of the horse. You put the fellow in
37:21jail and then courts think that, you know, we've let him out of jail. So the job is done. No,
37:29the job is to protect free speech and free unpopular speech.
37:36All right. You know, I'm going to give all of you, you know, for your concluding comments.
37:39Let's begin with Deshratha Nigam. Go ahead, sir. Make your final comments.
37:44And how it impacts freedom of speech in this country.
37:46Go ahead, sir.
37:47The freedom of speech, as we know, right from our constitution to the Supreme Court judgment
37:52is not absolute. Yes, unpopular speeches may be there, but it should not be anti-Indian.
37:57It should not be anti-armed forces. It should not be one particular community. That is where
38:02the red line is drawn. And if they are unpopular at the same time, violate any law, they have to
38:08be taken to the task. And therefore, you cannot, you know, make exceptions on the basis of the fact
38:13that incitement is going on, a particular community is being targeted, a society is being
38:20clearly divided on the basis of left and right in term for Colonel Qureshi. So these are the
38:25very important factors that the courts keep in mind, not merely that it's a nearly unpopular
38:30speech. Nobody, you know, touches if it is merely unpopular speech. I think our courts are matured
38:35enough to make that distinction between unpopular speech and speech which is anti-India or violating
38:40any law.
38:42You know, nobody's doubting one's, you know, intent or the maturity of the courts. But
38:48I would reckon, I think it's safe enough to question that at one end, the same bench doesn't
38:53give, you know, a gag order to the Tribal Affairs Minister in Madhya Pradesh. And yet,
38:59you've asked the professor, schooled him at that. And that's the better judgment of the court
39:03on what he should and should not have done and the timing of it all.
39:06Final comments, Ms. Nandy. Go ahead, ma'am.
39:11I think that the, our government's decision to go to, you know, to take action against the
39:21terrorists' shootings in Pahalgam was a very salutary one. It was a very important thing to do
39:29because clearly, Pakistan has not been able to deal with it and the time had come.
39:35The point is that should someone disagree and should someone not just be advocating for peace,
39:42but should someone also be saying that something that so many of us found wonderful that
39:51Colonel Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika were representing us when, you know, we were being told
39:59and being updated on what was going on. Should someone raise that as a good thing, but also say
40:08at the same time that let us not forget in the larger context that there is impunity with regard
40:14to lynchings, etc. We must remember our root values in our constitution.
40:27And in Shreya Singhal, citing this judgment with approval, our court has said that
40:36order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction. It is hazardous
40:42to discourage thought, hope and imagination, that fear breeds repression, that repression
40:47breeds hate and that hate menaces. And so, therefore, I do think that this order is what it
40:55is. It came in the wake of the SIT being set up in the case of the Madhya Pradesh Minister and
41:02perhaps some even-handedness had to happen, but there is room for modification.
41:07Okay. Mr. Dehadra, final comments.
41:08Very quick. I'll be very brief. Just three things. One, I think the court today acted with
41:14fantastic maturity. India has a complex demographic fabric. And I think sometimes
41:19the court has to be alive to certain sensitivities that might get offended. So, I think the first
41:25things first, I think what the court today is absolutely right. Second, I disagree with great
41:29respect with Mr. Hegde. He is entitled to his view, but I wish he would not take such a pessimistic
41:34view of the things that are happening in India. This is the same country in which the Supreme
41:38Court also acted with great speed and has released this gentleman on the same day. Plus,
41:42the NHRC has also taken notice of Mr. Mehmoodabad, Professor Mehmoodabad's arrest.
41:46So, there is no need for him to feel so pessimistic about what is happening in India. I think we all,
41:50especially him, I think his freedom of speech is irrepressible. He's known to say things that
41:54are on his mind. So, I think that's not fair. And third, personally, I think what Professor
41:59Mehmoodabad has said, it could have perhaps been avoided. He's become a martyr now for no reason.
42:05And I don't agree with what he said, but certainly, does this amount to sedition? Certainly
42:10not. And I think Renu Bhatia should be brought to account for what she has done. What she's done
42:17is a crime, and I want to say this, and I think she should be prosecuted for malicious prosecution
42:22for going after this person. I just want to bring in Mr. Hegde, final comments,
42:26and then I need to close the show. You see this question of timing,
42:31in wartime, do you shut up or not? Long ago in 1948, Lord Atkins said, in this country amid the
42:39clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war
42:45as in peace. So, if you have a right during peacetime, you have a right during wartime also.
42:53Yes, citizens have good sense, but otherwise, you cannot go after citizens just because you
43:04dislike what they say in sensitive times. You are doing no justice to this country,
43:12and people like me tend to get pessimistic the more that thinkers end up getting punished.
43:21Okay. All right. I appreciate all four of you for joining us. Thank you for taking the time out.
43:25We're going to leave it for the better judgment of our viewers to decide on which side do they
43:29stand on because, you know, what it looks like viewers, it's a bit of a potluck, the Indian
43:33legal system. You could go in for the same case through the top court and get very, very diametrically
43:38different judgments. In this, this is only an observation, and Professor Ali has interim bail.
43:45The case is now going to be heard on the 28th. Thank you for joining us.
Recommended
37:17
3:01