The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the FIR filed against BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his “thoughtless,” “filthy,” “crass,” and “shameful” remarks about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. The public apology from Shah was dismissed by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, who characterised it as a “attempt to wriggle out of the legal liability” and disingenuous.
“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 it as per the law,” Justice Kant said.
Nonetheless, the bench granted Shah solace by delaying his arrest, provided that he cooperated with the SIT’s investigation. Three Madhya Pradesh IPS officials serving outside the state, including a female police officer, must be included in the SIT by Tuesday at 10 a.m., according to a directive given to the state director general of police.
Shah’s appeal against two Madhya Pradesh High Court judgements that had taken suo-motu cognisance of the MLA’s comments against Qureshi, who had informed the media about India’s Operation Sindoor and the increasing tensions with Pakistan this month, was being heard by the Supreme Court. After noting that the FIR had been draughted to guarantee its future quashing, the high court had ordered the state police to file one against Shah and then instructed them to alter it.
While issuing notice on Shah’s appeal Monday, the Supreme Court bench ordered: “Having gone through the statements by the petitioner and the FIR, we are of the opinion that the subject FIR shall be probed by a SIT with three senior IPS officers… Let the SIT be constituted by tomorrow. Let one member be a woman officer. Both members shall be above the rank of superintendent of police. The head member shall not be below the rank of IG or DGP. Let the petitioner co-operate. As of now, his arrest shall remain stayed.”
The bench stated that, given the unique facts and circumstances of the case, it would like to have a very careful watch, even if the court made it clear that it is not inclined to monitor the investigation. The bench requested that the SIT give the progress report to it, stating that the case is a litmus test. Now, the issue will be discussed during the first week of vacation, which is from May 26 to June 1.
The bench repeatedly reprimanded Shah during the hearing, ignoring his lawyer, senior advocate Maninder Singh, who offered an explanation of his apology and the context of the comment. Shah is a public figure and ought to have been smart enough to take responsibility for his acts, the bench stated orally. The bench stated that the entire country was embarrassed by his remarks after the order was dictated. “Meanwhile, you think how you will redeem yourself…the entire nation is ashamed of…we are a country that firmly believes in rule of law…,” Justice Kant said, pulling up the state minister for being an “irresponsible” public figure.
“You are a seasoned politician. You should weigh your words when you speak,” the bench observed. “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 an important issue for the Armed Forces. We need to be very responsible,” Justice Kant said.
The bench then questioned the State for its inaction: “What have you done? When HC had to intervene and re-write your FIR, what have you done? Has it been examined if any cognisable offense is made out? People expect State action will be fair. HC has done its duty, they thought suo motu action was needed. You should have done something more by now.”
Shah had spurred a row, drawing flak for making a reference to Colonel Qureshi’s religion by saying, “Those who widowed our daughters…we sent a sister of their own to teach them a lesson.” On 14 May, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had initiated a suo-motu case against Shah, ordering the registration of a criminal case against him. “His comments are disparaging and dangerous, not just to the officer in question, but to the armed forces itself,” the high court had said last week. A day later, the high court had slammed the State for drafting the FIR in a manner that it could be quashed for not explicitly mentioning the actions of the accused.
