Today, On 15th May, The Madhya Pradesh High Court said the FIR against BJP MP Kunwar Vijay Shah lacked essential elements and could be quashed. It noted serious deficiencies and ordered monitoring of the probe involving Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court criticized the State on Thursday for the deficiencies found in the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) minister Kunwar Vijay Shah, who made comments targeting Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the Indian Army officer who briefed the media about Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.
A Bench consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla had initiated a suo motu case regarding this issue and ordered that an FIR against Shah be registered by Wednesday evening.
Advocate General Prashant Singh, On Thursday, informed the Court that the FIR had been filed. However, the Court noted that the FIR was drafted in a careless manner.
Justice Sreedharan commented,
“Have you read the FIR? How has it been drafted? There are no essential elements. It has been written in such a way that it could potentially be quashed. The content needs to be included in the FIR. The allegations must be clear… An FIR may be quashed because it lacks the necessary elements. There is no detailed description of the offence, merely referring to an order dated so and so. This is why we draw our conclusions. It (the FIR) only states that certain directions have been given,”
The Court expressed its concerns in its order, stating that it would oversee the investigation against Shah.
The order stated,
“This Court has examined P12 of the FIR, which must necessarily lay down ingredients of the offence connecting it to acts of the offender. The FIR is brief and lacks a single mention of the suspect’s actions that would fulfill the requirements of the offences registered… The operative portion merely reproduces the order of the High Court. It does not contain any details about the suspect’s actions and how they constitute an offence. This FIR has been filed in such a way that it leaves ample room for challenge due to its lack of substance.”
“Given these circumstances, this Court feels compelled to monitor the investigation while respecting the independence of the investigative agency. Considering the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR has been filed, the Court does not have confidence that the Police would conduct a fair investigation without oversight, thus serving the interest of justice and the law,”
The Court also instructed that its May 14 order be included as part of the FIR for all judicial, quasi-judicial, and investigative purposes.
The case will be heard again after the vacation.
Meanwhile, Shah has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s May 14 order. The Supreme Court declined to grant him any interim relief or stay on the FIR but stated it would hear his case tomorrow.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai remarked,
“Such a person holding a constitutional office should be responsible… when this country is going through such a situation, he has to know what he is saying. Just because you are a minister… We will hear it tomorrow,”
Before the High Court, AG Singh assured that the State intends to comply with court orders. He expressed disappointment that the High Court was viewing the State with suspicion.
The AG stated,
“Mujhe thoda dukh hai, State ko shakh se naa dekhe (I am a little sad, please don’t view the State with suspicion). Within four hours, we have complied. We are still open to comply,”
The Court responded,
“We are not questioning the timing. We are not satisfied with the contents (of the FIR),”
The AG added,
“Aap jaise bolenge, comply karenge. Pura order hai sir. Date of incident hai. Place of incident hai (We will comply with whatever you say; the full order is there in the FIR, sir, including the date and place of the incident). The matter is now under investigation,”
The Court had previously directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to register an FIR against Shah immediately, warning that it would initiate contempt proceedings if this directive was not followed.
The Court noted that Shah had allegedly used “the language of the gutters” by referring to Colonel Qureshi as the “sister of terrorists.”
Colonel Qureshi was among the Army officers who briefed the media about India’s recent cross-border military response, Operation Sindoor, against Pakistan, conducted following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 that resulted in the deaths of 26 Indian civilians.
Shah stirred controversy with his remarks, stating,
“Those who widowed our daughters, we sent a sister of their own to teach them a lesson.”
This comment was widely seen as a veiled reference to Colonel Qureshi.
During the hearing, the High Court noted that Shah’s comments, prima facie, could attract an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalizes actions that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
The High Court explained,
“Prima facie, the statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activity by imputing separatist sentiment to anyone who is Muslim, thereby endangering the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. Thus, this court is, prima facie, satisfied that the first offence made out against the minister was under Section 152 of the B.N.S,”
The Court also observed that Section 196 of the BNS, which addresses promoting enmity between different groups, was similarly applicable since Colonel Sofia Qureshi is a Muslim.
“Prima facie, this section would apply as Col. Sofia Quraishi is an adherent of the Muslim faith, and deriding her by referring to her as the sister of terrorists may undermine harmony between different religious groups, as it has the potential to create the impression that regardless of a person’s selfless service to India, they could still be disparaged simply because they are Muslim. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the offence under Section 196(1)(b) is also committed.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that Shah’s statement could incite disharmony and feelings of enmity or hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims.
As a result, the Court indicated that Section 197, which penalizes assertions prejudicial to national integration, is also prima facie applicable against Shah.