Crossing the red lines on the right to free speech

The Constitution does not criminalise thoughts, emotions, feelings, and speech, patriotic or otherwise, unless they amount to incitement to violence or public disorder. This is the key point in the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case

- Gautam Bhatia

The proceedings in the Supreme Court of India involving the social media posts of Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor at Ashoka University in Haryana, have raised some important questions. On Facebook, Mahmudabad had praised the conduct of the Indian Armed Forces during the recent military confrontation with Pakistan, while also noting the futility of war and its human cost. He had gone on to observe that the Army's decision to front Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in its public briefings was an important symbol of Indian pluralism, but that without accompanying substantive action to address violence against Muslims risked being reduced to optics. Following this, FIRs were filed against Mahmudabad; he was taken into police custody for a few days, and then, sent to prison. His laptop was confiscated (and continues to be so at the time of writing). He approached the Supreme Court, asking for his release and for a suspension of the proceedings against him. Before the Supreme Court, the oral arguments focused on the nature and the content of Mahmudabad's expression. His counsel insisted that the Facebook post was a straightforward instance of patriotism, in that it advanced unstinting support for the nation and the armed forces, even as it gently noted a possible gap between the ideals India aspired to, and parts of contemporary Indian reality. The Court, however, appeared not to be convinced. It suggested that Mahmudabad may have been engaging in "dog whistling," with his words carrying a double meaning, and that it was unnecessary for him to write such posts at a time like this.