Remarks on Col Sofiya Qureshi: Madhya Pradesh HC says FIR against MP minister ‘subterfuge… doesn’t inspire confidence’

“An FIR can be quashed where the ingredients and the contents of paragraph 12, which provides the description of the actions of the accused which constitute an offence, has not been reproduced in this particular paragraph,” observed Justices Atul Sreedharan, who is part of a Madhya Pradesh High Court division bench that also comprises Justice Anuradha Shukla which ordered an FIR into the matter on Wednesday.

“This is gross subterfuge on the part of the of the State. The FIR has been drawn in a manner so as to assist the suspect Mr Vijay Shah to be able to have the FIR quashed on a later date,” Justice Sreedharan observed.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused immediate intervention on Shah’s plea challenging the HC’s direction for an FIR to be filed against him, and observed that “every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility”.

On Wednesday, the Madhya Pradesh HC had ordered an FIR against Shah for his alleged reference to Colonel Qureshi, who was part of the daily briefings during India’s military face-off with Pakistan. The HC had observed, “Prima facie, the statement of the minister that Colonel Sofiya Qureshi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities which thereby endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.”

The SC Thursday agreed to hear Shah’s petition against HC order Friday. When Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for Shah, brought the petition to the court’s notice, CJI B R Gavai observed, “A person holding such a public office is expected to uphold certain standards. Every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility.” “Such a person holding a constitutional office should be responsible.”

When Makhija told the court that Shah had apologised for the comment, Justice Gavai said, “Go and apologise to the High Court.” The CJI then said the top court would take up the petition “tomorrow” (Friday).

Makhija also requested that no further proceedings should take place in the meantime, to which CJI Gavai said nothing will happen in 24 hours.

Putting forth the request again, Makhija said, “I am a minister. That’s why I request no further action. Matter is listed in HC today.” To this, Justice Gavai responded, “We know who you are.”

The court asked the senior counsel to “please go and indicate in the HC that the matter is listed in the SC”, and that the Madhya Pradesh High Court may have already given a date for hearing.

The HC observed Thursday, “In view of the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR has been registered, which does not inspire confidence of this Court, and the Court is of the opinion that if the case is not duly monitored, the police would not investigate fairly in the interest of justice in accordance with law.”

It observed that under the circumstances, the court feels compelled to ensure “that it monitors the investigation without interfering in the independence of the investigating agency, but only to the extent of monitoring that it acts fairly in accordance with law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or directions”.

Justice Sreedharan began the hearing by asking Advocate General Prashant Singh, “Where are the allegations constituting the offences in FIR? It has been drafted in such a way that it can be quashed. If not by this court, then the Supreme Court, on the plea that nothing is there in the FIR.”

Singh said, “Kindly appreciate your lordship has passed an order to file an FIR, (and) within four hours, that direction has been complied with… The sections have been registered, and the matter is now under investigation. All news clippings are part of the investigation.”

The court examined paragraph 12 of the FIR, which “must lay out ingredients of the offence connecting it to the act of the FIR”.

“Paragraph 12 is nothing but the reproduction of last part of the order passed by this Court on 14.05.2025 (Wednesday) and it does not have a whisper of the earlier part of the order, which lays down in detail, the actions of the suspect and how they constitute an offence under each of the sections,” Justice Sreedharan observed.

On May 12, Shah had said at an event in Mau that India taught a lesson to those responsible for the Pahalgam terror attack using “their own sister”. While he did not name any individual, the Congress alleged he was alluding to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

Shah later sought to clarify: “Do not see my speech in a different context. I want to tell people my speech is not in that context. They are our sisters, and they have taken revenge with great strength along with the armed forces.”