'How to Read a Sentence: The Supreme Court’s Order in Mahmudabad’s Case'

[Sukla Sen]

<https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/05/21/how-to-read-a-sentence-the-supreme-courts-order-in-mahmudabads-case>

The bench that delivered this profound judgement -- delving into and basing the judgement on the possibility of an embedded threat of a "dog whistle" and all that -- is headed by Honourable Justice Surya Kant.

The case was allocated to this bench by the incumbent CJI in his capacity of being the Master of the Roster. 

And Justice Surya Kant is in line to become the next CJI in the coming November for 1.2 years.

<<One might expect that such a far-reaching order – that effaces two Article 19 rights (freedom of expression and freedom of movement) – would be supported by equally strong reasoning. One might expect the Court to explain why a Facebook post that fulsomely praised the Indian Armed Forces, before going on to gently suggest that the optics of having a Muslim woman army officer address the army’s press conference would remain only optics without addressing violence against Muslims, merits this judicial response of blood, thunder, and steel. One would search in vain. In its two-page order, the Supreme Court does not consider the substance of the allegations against Mahmudabad, and whether his Facebook post, on a plain reading, meets the ingredients of the offences that he has been accused of (and imprisoned for).

...

In the absence of legal reasoning in the order, then, we must look to the informal record of the oral proceedings to reconstruct what might have been going on in the Court’s mind. On a perusal of the informal record, we find the Court observing that Mahmudabad’s post may have amounted to a “dog whistle.”

Now, a dog whistle requires three things: first, a whistle. Secondly, a bunch of dogs who are able to hear the whistle when it is whistled at dog ear-frequency. And thirdly, all the non-dogs who can’t hear the whistle. And if Mahmudabad’s post was indeed a dogwhistle (and therefore a breach of law), then it behooves the Court to inform us which part of it was the whistling, who are the dogs that the whistle wanted to attract, and who are all the non-dogs who wouldn’t be able to hear a thing. But the Court does not do so, so we are left in the dark. Later on, according to the informal record, the Court notes that “somebody with an analytical mind, will be conservant (sic) of the language….the words used, left on north side, will target the south side…some words have double meaning…”

Who is the “south side” that is being targeted, and which of the words have a “double meaning”? Presumably, the SIT will tell us. But at this stage, we may very gently suggest that if Mahmudabad used his analytical mind to issue such an incredibly subtle dog whistle that we need three police officers to tell us where the whistle was and who the dogs were, then it was very clearly a really terrible dog whistle. You might as well close the case on grounds of incompetence.

...

I must therefore respectfully suggest that the Supreme Court’s order may not be entirely correct in law. The reasons for the constitution of the SIT are puzzling. The gag order is outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The confiscation of the passport appears excessive. In the meantime, it is reported that Mahmudabad’s laptop has been confiscated, and one therefore hopes that the Court’s order does not become an excuse for a roving and fishing enquiry by the police, going beyond the remit of the FIR.

All this, for a Facebook post.>>

One should also look up: <https://youtu.be/6eiTQZwqcrc> in this context. The first 9 minutes in particular.

Peace Is Doable