"Don’t Politicise": Apex Court Refuses To Entertain Congress Leader's Plea Alleging Minister Kunwar Shah’s Remarks Against Col. Sofiya Qureshi Violated Oath

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain an Intervention Application filed by Congress leader, Dr. Jaya Thakur, who sought to support the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s suo motu direction for registration of an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over allegedly communal and derogatory remarks made against Col. Sofiya Qureshi.

The application filed in Kunwar Shah's SLP against the High Court's order alleged that the remarks violated constitutional morality, were in breach of the ministerial oath, and amounted to hate speech.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta remarked, “No, please don’t. Don’t file the application. Mr. Chaudhary, on that day also we told, please don’t politicise any matter. We will stick to the problem.”

Senior Advocate Anoop George Choudary was representing the Intervenor, and submitted before the Court, “There are so many questions. The question is also about the violation of the oath,” to which Justice Kant replied, “We will not say anything. You will file whatever petition you want to file. IA seeking intervention is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate independent remedy. To avail appropriate independent remedy.”

The Bench further said, “That IA has a separate cause of action. You know your remedy. We need not to even point out. You avail your remedy. We will welcome that.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that the report by the SIT had been placed before the Court, however, since it is an ongoing investigation, it would not be put out in the public domain.

The Court recorded that a status report dated May 27, 2025 had been filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, in compliance with its earlier directions. The Court ordered, “Status report has been filed by DIG Police, Bhopal. Status report dated May 27, 2025 has been filed by DIG Police. Inter alia pointing out that in compliance to order dated May 19, 2025, SIT comprising three IPS officers has been constituted. While order dated May 19, 2025, the SIT visited the site and conducted investigation. Thereafter, some more material has been collected. Hindi script of the speech has also been prepared.”

“Mobile phones etc. have also been seized, and statements of seven witnesses have so far been recorded. It is further pointed out that the investigation is still in initial stage. Some more time has been prayed for. The investigation shall continue and status report shall be filed on the date fixed. Interim order to continue, in their directions to continue”, the Bench added.

The Bench also closed proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court since it had already taken cognizance of the matter. “In view of the fact that this Court has taken cognizance of the matter, we request the High Court to close the proceedings on the date fixed,” the Bench stated.

The Intervention Application, filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, stated that she is a doctor by profession and working for the upliftment of women rights. The application described the suo motu order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated May 14, 2025, which directed registration of an FIR against the Minister, as necessary to protect public order and constitutional morality.

It stated, “The Hon'ble High Court rightly took suo motu cognizance of the Petitioner's communal and disrespectful comments targeting Colonel Sofia Quraishi, a decorated Army officer. By referring to her as ‘the sister of terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam’ and suggesting the Prime Minister ‘sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out,’ the Petitioner not only undermined the integrity of the armed forces but sought to communalize a national security matter by targeting an officer based on her religious identity.”

Referring to a second incident, the application stated, “During a public distribution of clothing to young girls at an event, the Petitioner was reported to have made inappropriate comments about women's attire. According to media reports, he made a remark about giving additional clothing items because he ‘didn't know what they wear underneath,’ a comment that caused significant criticism and highlighted insensitivity towards women's dignity.”

It was stated in the application that such remarks violated Constitutional provisions and the oath of office under Schedule III, Form V of the Constitution. “I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”, it stated.

Relying on Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) the applicant submitted, “The impugned remarks by the Petitioner fall within this spectrum of hate speech, particularly as they were made against a serving Army officer based on her religious identity.”

The Supreme Court declined to allow the intervention but left it open to the applicant to seek appropriate remedy before the competent forum.

Background

On May 15, 2025, when the matter was mentioned before the Bench of the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, the Bench had remarked, "When this country is undergoing such a situation, every sentence or word uttered by a minister has to be with a sense of responsibility.”

On May 19, the Bench had expressed serious reservations about the apology tendered by Shah.

During an event, the minister described Col. Quraishi as the “sister of the terrorists” allegedly responsible for the Pahalgam incident that claimed the lives of 26 Indian civilians. He further remarked that Prime Minister Modi had “dispatched the terrorists’ sister to deal with them. The High Court had noted that the Minister used “scurrilous and unwarranted language” against the officer, prompting the suo motu exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.

In its order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that the statements made by Shah were not only inappropriate but had the potential to undermine the morale and dignity of the armed forces, particularly a serving officer who was carrying out her official duties. “The armed forces… reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage… has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi", the High Court added.

The High Court recorded that the comments targeted Col. Qureshi personally and professionally, and that the statements appeared to be made with the intent to politicize a military operation and discredit the Indian Army’s communications. Observing that such statements could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court issued notice and initiated suo motu proceedings.

Cause Title: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Diary No. 27093-2025)