Categories
The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, delivered a stern rebuke to Madhya Pradesh BJP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his comments against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, questioning the sincerity of his apology and describing it as ‘crocodile tears’ intended to evade legal consequences.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh stated that the apology rendered by Shah was not acceptable given the gravity and crudeness of the remarks he made against a senior officer of the Indian Army. The court emphasized that as a public representative, every word uttered by him carried weight and should be chosen with caution.
“The kind of crass comments you made, completely thoughtlessly… We don’t need this apology,” the court remarked, adding that the apology seemed insincere and merely an attempt to sidestep legal repercussions. The bench further pointed out that the court had viewed the minister’s public address and noted that his language was on the verge of being ‘filthy’.
Formation of SIT to Investigate the Incident
In response to the incident, the Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh police to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. The SIT, the court ordered, should be set up by May 20, Tuesday, and should comprise three senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, including at least one female officer. The SIT must be headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police (IGP) or higher, with the other two members holding ranks no lower than Superintendent of Police (SP).
Significantly, the court also directed that all the officers appointed to the SIT should be from outside Madhya Pradesh, a move likely aimed at ensuring impartiality and fairness in the investigation.
Controversial Comments by Kunwar Vijay Shah
The controversy erupted when Kunwar Vijay Shah, during a public address, referred to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as the ‘sister of terrorists’. The minister’s remarks were made in reference to Operation Sindoor, a military operation conducted in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, where terrorists claimed the lives of 26 civilians in a meadow near the Jammu and Kashmir resort town.
In a video that went viral on social media, Shah said, “Those who widowed our daughters, we sent a sister of their own to teach them a lesson,” implying that Colonel Qureshi was aligned with terrorists due to her name. The statement drew widespread condemnation, with critics highlighting the deeply communal undertone of Shah’s words and the disrespect shown to a senior military officer who was part of a strategic briefing regarding the military operation.
Colonel Qureshi, along with Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, had briefed the media about the military aspects of Operation Sindoor, which was India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack. The operation was aimed at targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab province in Pakistan, and reportedly resulted in the death of over 100 terrorists.
Implications and Reactions
The Supreme Court’s directives and the formation of the SIT signify the gravity of the matter and the court’s intention to ensure accountability for derogatory and defamatory statements made by public officials. The court’s stern approach also underscores the principle that public figures must exercise restraint and responsibility when making statements, particularly against serving officers of the armed forces.
Political analysts have opined that the incident is likely to have far-reaching implications, not just for Shah, but also for the BJP, as it comes at a time when the party is seeking to project itself as the foremost supporter of the armed forces. The controversy has also sparked discussions about the growing use of communal rhetoric by politicians to score political points, even at the cost of disparaging the armed forces.
As the SIT prepares to commence its investigation, there is considerable anticipation regarding its findings and the potential legal repercussions for Kunwar Vijay Shah. The Supreme Court’s directive for the SIT to comprise officers from outside Madhya Pradesh is being viewed as a significant step to prevent political interference and ensure a fair investigation.
Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, an officer with a distinguished service record, has so far not commented publicly on the minister’s remarks. However, military circles and civil society have expressed outrage over the incident, calling for stricter actions against those who attempt to undermine the dignity of the armed forces through communal or defamatory rhetoric.
The incident also highlights the broader issue of the increasing politicization of the military and the need for public representatives to be more mindful of their statements, particularly when they concern serving officers who are committed to protecting the nation, regardless of their personal faith or background.
As the case proceeds, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court and the SIT to see how the investigation unfolds and whether it serves as a deterrent against future instances of such inflammatory and derogatory rhetoric by public officials.
