Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) said that a Special Investigation Team comprising three senior IPS officers, who do not belong to the State of Madhya Pradesh, must investigate the FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. One of the officers should be a woman, it added.

The Court ordered the Madhya Pradesh DGP to constitute the SIT by 10 AM tomorrow. It should be headed by an Inspector General of Police and the other two members shall also be of rank SP or above.

The Court also stayed the arrest of Vijay Shah in the FIR, which was registered following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, subject to the condition that he should join and cooperate with the investigation fully.

Further, though the bench said that it does not wish to monitor the investigation, it asked the SIT to submit a status report on the outcome. The matter will be next considered on May 28.

During the hearing, the Court chastised Vijay Shah for his remarks on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, which were termed as "filthy, crass and shameful" and rejected the public apology offered by him as insincere. After the order was dictated, Justice Kant orally said that the entire nation was ashamed of Shah's comments.

"Meanwhile, you think how you will redeem yourself...entire nation is ashamed of [your remarks]...we are a country that firmly believes in rule of law..." said the judge.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with two petitions filed by Shah: one, challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu order for registration of an FIR against him over his reference to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a "sister of terrorists"; second, against the High Court order of May 15, where the bench concerned expressed dissatisfaction with the FIR registered against Shah and said that it would monitor the investigation to ensure it takes place fairly.

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, for Shah, said that Shah has publicly apologized for his remarks. Justice Kant however, expressed dissatisfaction with the apology, posing, "What kind of apology? What is that apology? Sometimes people apologize to wriggle out of legal liabilities. Sometimes crocodile tears. What kind of apology is yours?"

Commenting that there was no sincere attempt on the part of the petitioner to apologize, the judge remarked, "The kind of crass comments you made, completely thoughtlessly. What prevented you from making a sincere attempt? We don't require your apology. We know how to deal with as per the law".

Pointing out that in his apology video, Shah did not concede to having hurt public sentiments, Justice Kant said, "Your apology - we are not ready to accept. It is only to wriggle out of legal liability. We have rejected your apology. You have said "if somebody is hurt..."...You are not even ready to take responsibility".

The judge further observed from Shah's controversial video that he was about to use very "abusive, filthy language" but stopped short of it. "You are a public figure. A seasoned politician. You should weigh your words when you speak. We should display your video here...media people are not going into depth of your video...you were at a stage where you were going to use abusive language, very filthy language...but something prevailed on you and you stopped. This is important issue for Armed Forces. We need to very responsible," Justice Kant said.

The bench also opined that the High Court did its duty (when it took suo motu action) and questioned the State over its inaction. "What have you done? After High Court had to intervene and re-write your FIR, what have you done? Has it been examined if any cognizable offense is made out? People expect state action will be fair. High Court has done its duty, they thought suo motu action was needed...you should have done something more by now", reflected Justice Kant.

Ultimately, the bench said that it will constitute an SIT to investigate, comprising senior IPS officers who do not belong to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was also indicated that the Court will maintain a "close watch", though not monitor the investigation.

Earlier proceedings

On May 15, when the matter was mentioned before the Court by Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija (on behalf of Shah), a bench led by CJI BR Gavai refused to intervene. "A person holding such an office is expected to maintain such a decree...every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility", CJI said. Though Makhija stressed that Shah had tendered a public apology and that his statement was widely misunderstood, the Court refused to pass any interim order and said that Shah may approach the High Court (before which as well the matter was listed that day).

On the same day, the top Court also refused to entertain a plea which sought directions to the Union and Madhya Pradesh governments to take adverse action against Shah over his comment on Colonel Qureshi. While dismissing the plea, CJI Gavai remarked that such pleas were only being filed for publicity.

On the other hand, in the proceedings before the High Court, the bench concerned expressed dissatisfaction with the FIR registered against Shah by MP police and said that it will monitor the investigation to ensure that it takes place fairly. Challenging the order passed on this day, Shah filed a second petition, which was also listed today.

Background

Colonel Sofiya Qureshi had become the face of the 'Operation Sindoor' after she gave press briefings about the military operations carried out by the Indian Air Force against Pakistani terrorist sites.

However, Vijay Shah courted controversy by saying at an event, "Jinhone humari betiyon ke sindoor ujade the… humne unhiki behen bhej kar ke unki aisi ki taisi karwayi" [Translation: Those people (terrorists) who had wiped out the sindoor (vermilion) of our sisters (in the Pahalgam terror attack)...we avenged these people by sending their sister to destroy them].

While passing suo motu directions on May 14, the High Court described Shah's remarks as 'disparaging,' 'dangerous,' and 'language of the gutters'-not merely targeting the officer in question, but denigrating the armed forces as a whole. It further observed that, prima facie, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were made out against the Minister.

The Court added that the remarks had the 'propensity' to fuel an impression that, irrespective of the selfless duties of a person towards India, such a person could still be derided "only because that person belongs to the Muslim faith".

Ultimately, the State DGP was directed to forthwith register an FIR against Shah (by evening) and warned of contempt proceedings in case of non-compliance. Hours after the order was passed, the MP police booked Shah under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of BNS.

Section 152 of the BNS, which provides for punishment up to life imprisonment, criminalizes any act that excites secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.

Section 196(1)(b), on the other hand, deals with acts that are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturb or are likely to disturb public tranquility. Section 197(1)(c) BNS deals with acts against national integration.

It may be mentioned that at 09:34 PM on May 14 (when the FIR was registered), Shah posted a video on his official 'X' account, issuing a public apology for his remarks. In the said video, he called Colonel Qureshi 'Nation's sister'.

Case Title: KUNWAR VIJAY SHAH Versus THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., Diary No. 27093-2025 (and connected case)