New Delhi, July 17 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Haryana police's special investigation team (SIT) for "misdirecting" itself on the probe related to two social media posts by Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad on Operation Sindoor and called for a report within four weeks. The court extended the interim bail granted to the professor on May 21 and ended the requirement for him to appear again for questioning before SIT. While the state objected to this direction, the court remarked, "You do not require him. You require a dictionary," indirectly pointing to the inability of the SIT to determine criminality in the two online posts, a task that it said should have required just two days and not two months. The order by the court came while considering an interim report submitted by the three-member SIT headed by Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Mamta Singh seeking an additional two months' time to submit its report. The committee said that based on the forensic analysis of the devices submitted by the petitioner, it will require time to go through the material. The bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, "Granting time is not an issue. We want to point out why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They may say after going through the two articles (posted by petitioner) that the entire article may be offensive but it does not constitute an offence." The court said that the purpose of forming the SIT was to examine the two posts made by Mahmudabad on May 8 and 11 for a "holistic understanding of the phraseology employed" and for proper appreciation of expressions contained in the posts and conclude whether it constitutes an offence, and if so, the penal provisions that are attracted in the case. "The ultimate evaluation of the report is to be done by us.It is a simple question. Why they (SIT) are taking 2 months for an exercise that can be done in 2 days," the court observed. Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for Haryana told the court that while the SIT, constituted by the court, is not under the state's control, the committee cannot be dictated on how to probe the case. He said the committee may certainly want to examine any incriminating material on going through the electronic devices held by the petitioner. The bench said, "If during this exercise, any incriminating material comes to the notice of SIT, law will take its own course. How will that have an impact on the present case?" Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the professor said, "It is not fair to conduct a roving enquiry. He (Mahmudabad) was called four times...Why do they require two more months?" The order further clarified that since the petitioner has joined the investigation and handed over his gadgets for probe, "It may not be necessary to summon him again for joining the investigation." To remove any "undesirable confusion", the bench said, "We make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to continue to write any online post, article or any opinion except that he should not comment on the matter which is sub-judice."...