Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, professor of political science at Ahsoka University, has become the latest hatred created by Indian Indian nationalists with the support of police and judiciary. The crime Mahmudabad has not yet committed is attributed to him and is now asked to prove his innocence is a classic case of "crime until proven innocent". The more innocence he begged for, the deeper the doubts about him, India's Supreme Court has already skeptical of his intentions and has made negative observations against him before setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to review Facebook posts containing 1,530 words. Although his position is clear, Mahamubad is expected to explain himself and eliminate suspicions the Supreme Court has created on the land.

In these posts, Mahmudabad criticized Pakistan for hiding terrorists in praising India's military operations against its neighbors. He highlighted the applause from the case of two female officers, one of whom Muslims, on the global stage. However, he warned that these inclusive optics would remain hypocritical if India’s daily persecution of Muslims did not cease.

What Mahmudabad wrote was expressed in different ways before him. Suddenly, however, Renu Bhatia, head of the Haryana Women's Commission, appeared at a press conference and accused Mahmudabad of insulting two female officials. Her allegations confused many. Mahmudabad responded through his attorney and explained his position thoroughly. But even if her allegations were not confirmed, Batia was not satisfied. When the TV anchor questioned to determine that a specific word or sentence was degraded to the female official, she couldn't find it. Still, she insisted that her offense felt enough to prove that Mahmudabad's post must have been problematic - he must have written something horrible. She believes pointing out offensive phrases is not her job. Revealing what is the police responsibility that may offend her.

Mahmudabad's posts have been subject to severe scrutiny by many individuals and media following her allegations. No annoying or insulting content was found. Members of academia and civil society gathered behind Mahmudabad and expressed indignation at the actions of the Women's Commission.

When a member of the Balatia Janata Party (BJP), a member of the Balatia Janata Party (BJP), which ruled the Hindu Nationalist Party, filed a complaint with the Haryana police, saying Mahammabad had told him and others some harm. Referring to the same Facebook post, the complainant claimed they offended him. Police took his complaint seriously, accusing Mahamudhabad of committing serious crimes, including inciting hatred among religious groups, committing crimes, offending a community's religious sentiment and infuriating women's modesty. Mahmudabad was quickly arrested.

Mahmudabad's lawyers are confident that careful reading of his writing will expose the groundlessness of the allegations and seek release with the Supreme Court and stay in the police investigation. However, ahead of the hearing, 200 academic circles, including the vice president and heads of academic institutions, issued a statement urging the court to take a tough rank against him. They accuse Mahmudabad of trying to "undermine community harmony, undermine institutional integrity and erode gender equality". They described his post as “a disgust that was covered up in pseudo-academic inquiries” and urged the Supreme Court to consider its broader socio-legal significance.

During the hearing, Mahmudabad's lawyer read the post aloud. The court responded to this, showing that his words meant a double meaning and formed the dog's whistle. "Analytical people will understand this language. ...The words used seem harmless, but can be targeted at unexpected audiences," the bench said.

The Supreme Court then formed a scene that included three senior police officers to “understand the complexity and appropriately appreciate the language used in the post.”

Therefore, the Supreme Court order left the impression that Mahmudabad's words could not be accepted at superficial value. Although his statement may seem friendly, there must be some hidden meaning or ulterior motive of lurking under the ground.

The public's reaction to the court's delegating its obligation to interpret the police was one of the shocks. Is it difficult for the court to read, analyze and explain the posts themselves? Are the members of the court not analytical thinking to read and understand what Mahmudabad wrote? Isn't this their job? Or has the court avoided its position?

SIT will operate in the shadow of the assumptions raised by the court, which has relied on Mahmudabad. How can he eliminate such preconceived ideas?

Meanwhile, the fog around Mahmudabad thickens. Police are investigating his family background, devout Muslim identity, and contacts with his ancestors who traveled abroad. These factors will now serve as the background for posts to be read and explained.

The media is busy demonizing Mahmudabad. Soon his actual discourse will disappear into the dense fog of propaganda, replaced by the image of a fanatical, cunning, scheming Muslim engraved in the collective Hindu imagination.

Mahmudabad appeared before sitting. Meanwhile, BJP student Wing Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) announced plans for public demonstrations against him. It asked Ahsoka University to fire him because he wrote "evil posts." The mouth organ of the mother Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, who ruled the BJP and ABVP, also joined the choir to demand action against Mahmudabad.

We see the same script unfolding - a script that once insulted scholars such as Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, turning them into help from the media, police and the judiciary.

One can only hope that the police will remain unwavering, unaffected by judicial rhetoric or harsh propaganda, and read the simple lines of Mahmudabad with the eyes of the constitution. His words - produced by Muslim ideas - call for sympathy, understanding, justice, equality and dignity.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own views and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.