The Supreme Court Monday rejected the apology tendered by Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his remarks on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as “only a pretence to wriggle out of the consequences”, and ordered the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the FIR filed against him over the issue.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh was hearing petitions filed by Shah challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s suo motu order directing the registration of an FIR against him for the alleged remarks.
“Having gone through the contents of the statement attributed to the petitioner, also the contents of the apology said to have been tendered by him, we are satisfied that subject FIR requires to be investigated by an SIT comprising three senior, directly recruited IPS officers of MP cadre but who do not belong the state,” the bench directed.
“We are further of the opinion that out of the three, one should be a woman IPS officer. The Director General of Police, MP, is directed to constitute the SIT before tomorrow at 10 am. It shall be headed by an officer not below the rank of IGP, and both members shall also be of rank SP or above,” the bench added.
Directing that Shah join and fully cooperate with the investigation, the bench said that “subject thereto, as of now, his arrest shall remain stayed.” “Though following the settled law, we are not going to monitor the investigation, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct SIT to submit the outcome of its investigation through a status report.”
“We are not saying monitoring, but we will keep a close watch. So it’s a litmus test for you,” the court said while ordering the probe.
The court also refused to allow intervention applications in the matter, saying “it will only politicise the issue.” Justice Kant said, “He must face the consequences of what he has done. But let law take its own course. We will not like anyone to intervene.”
After the order was dictated, the court told Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who represented Singh, “Meanwhile, you think how you will redeem yourself. We do not want to comment. The entire nation is ashamed of… We are a country that firmly believes in the rule of law. High or small, we follow the same rules for everyone. You had only one minor apprehension…judges never carry prejudices against anyone. That’s why the principle is ordered by the court to cause harm to none. That’s a settled doctrine.”
The bench asked the SIT to submit the report to the court by May 28, when it will hear the matter again.
Singh said the minister had tendered an apology for what he had said. Questioning the lack of sincerity in the apology, Justice Kant asked, “What is that apology? Should we show you (the) video? What kind of apology have you tendered? You might not have watched your video, but because of the nature of this matter, not only have we watched it, but we are also carrying the video clips. So what kind of apology have you tendered? We would like to see that.”
“There is a meaning of the word ‘apology’. Sometimes people in docile language will say a very artificial kind of apology, only to wriggle out. We would like to know. Where is that? The kind of crass comments you made. So completely thoughtless. You made it on May 12, and today is May 19. You are harping on that apology. What prevented you from making at least a sincere attempt?”Justice Kant asked.
Singh said Shah is ready to apologise even before the court. However, the bench said, “We don’t require this apology. We know how to deal with it as per law. It’s not that you have committed contempt of court that you require to tender an apology to us. You commit something and then come to court, and because I am entering the court, I will attach an apology. Is it the attitude?”
Justice Kant said, “You are a public figure, a seasoned politician. You should weigh your words when you speak. In fact, we should display your video of your speech… You were going to commit, people are not reporting, because unfortunately, media people…pick up a few words from you, they are not really going into the depth of your video. You were on the verge of using very abusive language. There you stopped because you couldn’t find any alternate word, filthy language… But somehow or other, either some sense prevailed, or you could not find that word, and you stopped. This is your conduct.”
Singh said, “It was completely, completely not done.”
Justice Kant said, “You should have been more sensible. Such an emotive issue… One has to see the timing. It’s such an emotive issue for the Indian forces. And each one of us needs to be very, very responsible. We said we are proud of our Army. We repeat. They are on the frontlines. The least we can do….”.
Singh contended that Shah had expressed genuine regret. But the bench did not agree. “If you are insisting that this is your genuine regret, then it is outrightly rejected. You say ‘If I have hurt’. You are still not ready to admit that you have hurt somebody’s feelings and sentiments… You say, ‘if I have hurt, then my apology’. What is this condition? What does he think of himself?” said Justice Kant.
“You are a responsible person, You are a minister, a public representative. In a representative democracy, you are, in a way, representing millions of people. They expect something. Your standards need to be much higher than the others. You must lead by example. This is what we expect from our leaders,” Justice Kant added.
Singh said that he is willing to apologise again without any ifs.
“We don’t want to say, but we leave that to your discretion… Tomorrow, you want to give the impression that you are tendering an apology because the court said, not that you want to do it. This is the message you want to give,” said Justice Kant.
“What is the date when this most unfortunate thing (happened)? Today, we are on May 19. What prevented you from doing it? When the whole country is making a hue and cry. You are fully exposed to the public. You know how people’s sentiments have been so ruthlessly hurt. You have played with their sentiments. You should have done something that, yes, I admit, I have done wrong. You are saying if I have done,” said Justice Kant.
The bench then asked the Madhya Pradesh Government about what it had done “so far” after the registration of the FIR. “First, you register the kind of FIR that the HC has taken notice of, the very next day. What happened after 15, when the HC had to intervene and rewrite your FIR? After that, what have you done? Have somebody examined if any cognizable offence is made out?” asked Justice Kant.
The state counsel said, “We are investigating.”
Justice Kant said, “People are expecting that the action of the state will also be fair. HC has done its duty, they thought it’s a matter where suo motu intervention is needed.”
On the minister’s apprehensions that he was not heard and presumptions have been made against him, the top court said it will also go into those, but added that they might have become academic, now that the FIR has been registered.
To the state’s reply that the local police will investigate, Justice Kant said, “Look at the difference in stature and position of the suspect and the investigating officer. Probably, you should have done something more by now.”
