The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated May 15, 2025, marks one of the most forceful judicial interventions in recent memory against institutional sabotage and political impunity. Coming a day after the Court had directed the registration of an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his inflammatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the Court found itself compelled to confront what it described as a “gross subterfuge” by the State police. The FIR filed in response to the Court’s direction was, in the bench’s view, a deliberate attempt to defeat the purpose of judicial scrutiny by being so deficient and vague that it invited quashing.
In no uncertain terms, the division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla delivered a stinging rebuke to the State, noting that the FIR had been crafted in a manner designed not to prosecute, but to protect. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR—expected to lay out the minister’s actions and how they constituted the offences alleged—merely reproduced the concluding paragraph of the Court’s own order from the previous day, while omitting all factual and legal reasoning. This omission, the Court warned, opened the door for the FIR to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (the successor to Section 482 CrPC), effectively nullifying the judicial process.
What emerged from the May 15 hearing was the Court’s growing scepticism about the willingness of the State police to independently and impartially investigate a sitting Cabinet Minister. The bench did not shy away from calling out the subversion of process and the appearance of executive shielding. While stopping short of naming officials responsible for what it called a “clumsy attempt,” the Court made it clear that further proceedings would examine the chain of command involved in drafting the FIR.
To safeguard the integrity of the investigation, the Court took the extraordinary step of directing that its entire order from May 14 be treated as part of the FIR. It also announced that it would now monitor the investigation to ensure that the case is not quietly buried under bureaucratic evasions or political pressure. This order is not just a procedural correction—it is a firm statement that the judiciary will not tolerate the erosion of accountability when hate speech and communal slander are weaponised by those in public office.
Details of what transpired in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, along with the Supreme Court, are below.
May 15- Madhya Pradesh High Court slams state police for ‘Gross Subterfuge’ in FIR
I. The Hearing: Sharp rebuke to state over subversion of process
On May 15, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the state police for the manner in which it had complied with the Court’s earlier order to lodge an FIR against sitting BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his offensive remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla made it unequivocally clear that the Court would not allow the investigation to be derailed or diluted.
According to the report of LiveLaw, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the contents of the FIR, criticising it for being drafted in a manner so skeletal and vague that it invited quashing. “I’m sure you’ve read it,” the bench remarked to the Advocate General. “It has been drafted in such a way that it can be quashed. Where are the ingredients? Who drafted this?” The bench questioned how an FIR could be considered valid when it lacked any specific mention of the minister’s actions or how those actions fulfilled the ingredients of the offences invoked.
While the Advocate General submitted that the state had complied with the Court’s May 14 direction and even handed over a copy of the FIR, the bench was not convinced. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR — which should have detailed the accused’s actions and how they constitute the alleged offences — was nothing more than a mechanical reproduction of the Court’s earlier order. Crucially, it failed to reflect the parts of that order that laid out the specific conduct of the accused and the legal basis for charging him under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The bench called this omission a deliberate design, a “gross subterfuge” meant to weaken the case and insulate the minister from future prosecution. “This FIR has been registered in such a manner…so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS), it may be quashed,” the Court noted sharply, as per the report of LiveLaw,
Despite submissions by Advocate General Prashant Singh assuring the Court that the state had no intention to shield the minister and would comply with all directions, the Court made clear that intent alone could not cure procedural sabotage. It remarked that it would be forced to monitor the investigation, not to interfere with the agency’s independence, but to ensure that the probe was not tainted by extraneous influences or politically motivated pressures.
II. The Order: Blistering indictment and judicial safeguards
Later that evening, the High Court’s written order laid bare the extent of its disapproval. In no uncertain terms, the bench described the FIR as an exercise in deliberate obfuscation, aimed at frustrating the judicial process.
“This Court has examined paragraph-12 of the FIR, which must necessarily lay down the ingredients of the offence by connecting it to the act of the offender. The FIR is brief. Having gone through the FIR in its entirety, there is not a single mention of the actions of the suspect, which would satisfy the ingredients of the offences which have been registered against him,” the Court noted in the FIR.
Notably, Section 152 of the BNS, notably, criminalises any speech or act that incites secessionist sentiments or undermines national unity — an offence punishable with up to life imprisonment. Sections 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) further address attempts to incite communal disharmony and acts against national integration. These provisions relate to acts endangering India’s sovereignty and integrity, disturbing communal harmony, and undermining national integration — all serious charges triggered by Shah’s remarks describing Colonel Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists”.
However, the FIR, the Court noted, was drafted to look superficially compliant while omitting essential content that could withstand judicial scrutiny. In a scathing indictment, the bench wrote:
“This FIR has been registered in such a manner leaving sufficient space open so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of Cr.P.C (section 528 BNSS), the same may be quashed because it is deficient in material particulars of the actions which constitutes each of the specific offences. 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.”
The Court declined, for now, to name those responsible for what it termed a “clumsy attempt” to dilute accountability, but made clear that it would examine this further in subsequent proceedings.
“At this juncture this Court desists from embarking on a journey to find out as to who was responsible in the chain of command of the State police for this clumsy attempt. This Court shall endeavour to find out the same in future proceedings.”
To safeguard the case from being derailed, the Court issued a unique direction:
“However, in order to ensure that said subterfuge is nipped in the bud, this Court directs that the entire order of 14.05.2025 shall be read as part of paragraph 12 of the FIR for all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating process henceforth.”
This directive ensures that the contents of the Court’s earlier order — including its detailed reasoning on how Shah’s remarks constitute criminal acts — are deemed to be part of the FIR itself, immunising it from legal infirmities arising from the police’s omissions.
Lastly, recognising the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter, the Court announced that it would continue to monitor the investigation. While clarifying that this would not impinge on the police’s autonomy, the bench made it clear that judicial oversight was now essential to ensure a fair and unbiased probe.
“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. Under the circumstances, this 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.”
The matter is scheduled to be listed immediately after the vacation, ensuring continuity in judicial supervision.
Key findings of the Court through its order:
1. Failure to articulate offence
The Court unequivocally states that the FIR, while brief, omits the essential content required to constitute a valid FIR under law. Paragraph 12 of the FIR, which should describe the suspect’s actions in terms of legal ingredients, is merely a reproduction of the final operative part of the Court’s own order from May 14 2025.
2. Strategic deficiency and subterfuge
The Court goes beyond identifying technical gaps and alleges intentional subversion of judicial direction, and does not merely suggest incompetence; it attributes intent—asserting that the FIR was drawn up in a way designed to assist the accused in securing a quashing of the FIR at a later date.
3. Postponed attribution of responsibility
While noting that the drafting of the FIR amounted to a “clumsy attempt,” the Court refrains from immediately naming those responsible within the police hierarchy. However, it clearly reserves its right to do so in the future.
4. Judicial incorporation of prior order into FIR
In a decisive move to prevent the FIR from being rendered legally ineffective, the Court directs that its order dated May 14, 2025 be treated as part of the FIR. This step is unusual and noteworthy. Courts typically do not rewrite executive documents. By judicially supplementing the FIR with its own prior reasoning, the Court ensures that the FIR now contains the essential legal and factual ingredients to support the investigation and prosecution.
5. Judicial monitoring of investigation
The Court, expressing a clear lack of confidence in the police to act fairly without oversight, announces its intention to monitor the investigation. One should note that the same is not interference with investigative autonomy but a supervisory mechanism to preserve the integrity of the process. The Court’s language carefully respects the institutional independence of the police while simultaneously asserting the necessity of judicial vigilance.
The complete order may be read below.
May 15- Supreme Court declines interim relief to BJP Minister Vijay Shah
On May 15, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief to BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in connection with the FIR registered against him for his inflammatory remark referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists.” The FIR had been filed following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The matter came up through an urgent mentioning by Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing Shah, who questioned the maintainability of the High Court’s suo motu order and urged the apex court to intervene. However, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, heading the bench along with Justice AG Masih, refused to interfere at this stage. CJI Gavai made a pointed observation:
“A person holding such an office is expected to maintain a certain standard. Every sentence uttered by a minister carries responsibility.”
Makhija informed the bench that Shah had already issued an apology and claimed his remark had been widely misinterpreted and taken out of context by the media. She requested that no coercive action be taken against him until he is heard.
However, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court was told that an FIR had already been registered. In response, the bench declined to pass any interim orders and directed Shah to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief, noting:
“Go and apply to the High Court. We will have it tomorrow.”
The Supreme Court thus refused to stay the proceedings or provide protection at this stage, keeping the door open for judicial review by the High Court. The matter is likely to be taken up again shortly.
May 14– MP HC orders FIR for hate-laden remarks against Col. Sofiya Qureshi
I. The Hearing: Unparalleled judicial censure against BJP Minister’s “disparaging” speech
On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of a highly offensive remark made by BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The Court acted swiftly and firmly, ordering the immediate registration of an FIR against the Minister under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The division bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla, unequivocally condemned the Minister’s statement as not only “disparaging” and “dangerous” but also constituting “language of the gutters.” It held that the remarks went far beyond personal insult and, in fact, were a grave denigration of the Indian Armed Forces as an institution.
The Court emphasised the importance of the armed forces as perhaps the country’s last bastion of integrity, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, and courage—qualities which any patriotic citizen must hold dear. It noted with particular gravity that Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh had been the visible face of the armed forces’ briefing to the media and the nation during Operation Sindoor, the military operation against Pakistan. Therefore, the Minister’s remarks targeted not just the officer but the very honour and dignity of the armed forces. The Court described Shah’s comments as “unpardonable” innuendo aimed squarely at Colonel Qureshi.
On the legal front, the Court carefully examined the prima facie applicability of the offences alleged against Shah under the BNS, 2023. It held that Section 152, which criminalises acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, was clearly attracted. The Court reasoned that by labelling Col. Qureshi—an officer who is Muslim—as the “sister of terrorists,” Shah implicitly encouraged separatist sentiments and suspicion against Muslims, thereby endangering national unity. The remark, the Court observed, imputes a separatist identity to anyone belonging to the Muslim faith, a dangerous insinuation with the potential to undermine the country’s sovereignty.
Further, the Court found that Section 196(1)(b), which punishes acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups, was triggered. It observed that deriding Col. Qureshi on communal grounds could disturb the delicate social fabric and public tranquillity. By invoking her religious identity in a disparaging way, Shah’s remarks risked fuelling communal tensions.
The Court also held that Section 197(1)(c) was prima facie attracted. This provision criminalises any assertion or plea that causes or is likely to cause enmity or ill-will between communities. The Court noted that the Minister’s comments had the clear “propensity” to stir disharmony and hatred between members of the Muslim community and others, regardless of the selfless service of individuals like Col. Qureshi.
In light of these serious prima facie findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minister Shah forthwith—no later than that very evening. It warned that failure to comply would lead to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the DGP. The Advocate General was instructed to immediately transmit the Court’s order to the police authorities and ensure compliance.
The report of the LiveLaw provided that Justice Sreedharan, while addressing the Advocate General during the hearing, expressed impatience with any delay, stating with striking urgency:
“Register, register right now… I may not be alive tomorrow… I am giving you four hours… Let this order be stayed by the Supreme Court, or be complied with by tomorrow.”
When the Advocate General suggested that the Court’s findings were based mainly on media reports and that the statements might have been misunderstood or taken out of context, the Court decisively rejected this. It said it had itself reviewed the video of the remarks and would incorporate the YouTube links into the order, explicitly calling Shah’s speech “venom” and underscoring the seriousness with which it was treating the matter.
This unequivocal and stern order demonstrated the Court’s resolve to uphold the sanctity of the armed forces and the rule of law against hate speech, especially when it emanates from individuals holding public office. By acting suo motu and invoking relevant provisions of the BNS, the Court sent a clear signal that communal slander, particularly from politicians, will not be tolerated and must be met with swift judicial action.
The Court’s approach also underscored the constitutional principle that freedom of speech carries responsibility—especially for public figures whose words can inflame division and undermine national integration. This decision reinforced the judiciary’s role as a vigilant guardian against hate speech and communal disharmony, affirming that the armed forces deserve the highest respect and protection from defamatory and incendiary remarks.
II. The Order: A constitutional rebuke against hate and slur by a Minister
In its order dated May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a powerful and unequivocal direction to register an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for publicly calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of terrorists.” Triggered by media reports and publicly available video footage, the Court acted suo-motu, viewing the Minister’s speech as not only deeply offensive but also a prima facie criminal act under the BNS 2023.
At the heart of the order is the Court’s scathing assessment that Shah’s words were more than a personal insult—they amounted to an attack on the institutional honour of the Indian Armed Forces. The bench described the Minister’s language as “scurrilous,” “disparaging,” “dangerous,” and “language of the gutters.” The Court further held that the attack was not isolated but directly aimed at a senior military officer who was publicly representing the armed forces during a sensitive national operation, Operation Sindoor.
“The armed forces, perhaps the last institution existing in this country, reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage with which any citizen of this country who values the same can identify themselves with, has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi.” (Para 2)
Drawing from news reports and video material, the Court found that Shah’s reference to Col. Quraishi as the “sister of terrorists” who killed 26 Indians at Pahalgam was not vague or general—it was a clear innuendo directed at her, as she was the only person who matched the description in the speech. The Court remarked that Shah had, in effect, suggested that the Prime Minister had “sent the sister of terrorists to sort them out,” a statement that it found both incendiary and deeply damaging to public confidence in the armed forces.
“At that public function, he has referred to Col. Sofia Quraishi as the sister of the terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam. Further, the newspaper reports and a plethora of digital material available on the internet in which the speech of the minister is clear and unequivocal, where he has referred to the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, for having sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out. His comments are disparaging and dangerous, not just to the officer in question but to the armed forces itself.” (Para 3)
In its legal analysis, the Court invoked three provisions of the BNS and held that all three were prima facie attracted.
Section 152 BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, was the first invoked. The Court found that by insinuating that a Muslim Army officer was affiliated with terrorists, the Minister had encouraged feelings of separatist activity and undermined national unity. The Court emphasised that imputing separatist sentiment to Muslims serving in the armed forces is both unconstitutional and subversive:
“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 activities by imputing separatist feeling to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.” (Para 6)
Section 196 (1)(b) BNS, which penalises acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different communities, was the second provision cited. The Court noted that the Minister’s remark could give rise to the perception that Muslims, regardless of their loyalty or contribution to the nation, remain forever suspect. This, the Court held, was likely to disturb public tranquillity and reinforce religious fault lines.
“Prima facie, this section would be applicable as Col. Sofia Quraishi is an adherent of the Muslim faith and deriding her by referring to her as the sister of terrorists may be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions groups as it has the propensity to fuel an impression that irrespective of the selfless duties of a person towards India, such a person could still be derided only because that person belongs to the Muslim faith. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the offence under Section 196(1)(b) is also committed.” (Para 8)
Section 197(1)(c) BNS, which criminalises assertions likely to cause disharmony between religious groups, was also found to be applicable. The Court stated that the Minister’s remarks had the potential to deepen religious division and provoke hostility between communities, especially by invoking a communal stereotype in a public and inflammatory setting.
“The statement made by Minister Vijay Shah prima facie has the propensity to cause disharmony and feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between the members of the Muslim faith and other persons who do not belong to the same religion.” (Para 10)
On the strength of these findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR against Vijay Shah under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS forthwith, by the evening of May 14. It made clear that non-compliance would invite contempt proceedings.
“On the basis of what has been observed herein above this Court directs the Director General of Police of Madhya Pradesh to register forthwith an FIR against Minister Vijay Shah for offences under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the B.N.S. The same must be done by today evening, failing which tomorrow, when the matter is listed, the Court may contemplate proceeding against the Director General of Police of the State for contempt of this Order.” (Para 11)
Further, the Court directed the Advocate General’s office to transmit the order immediately to the DGP and asked the Registrar (IT) to collect and place on record the video links of Shah’s speech for the next day’s proceedings.
Key findings of the Court through its order:
- Use of suo-motu powers to uphold constitutional integrity: The Court acted on its own motion, recognising that the matter was too serious to wait for a formal complaint. This reinforces the judiciary’s role in addressing hate speech by those in public office.
- Characterisation of the armed forces as a constitutional institution under attack: The Court positioned the armed forces as a symbol of national values, and it viewed any attempt to denigrate them—especially by communalising their members—as a grave constitutional breach.
- Identification of communal intent and legal applicability of BNS provisions: The Court methodically applied new penal code provisions and found that Shah’s statement not only offended basic decency but, prima facie, satisfied the legal requirements for offences threatening national integrity and communal harmony.
- Urgency and judicial accountability: The Court gave the State police a same-day deadline for FIR registration and made clear that non-compliance would be treated as contempt of court. This reflects a demand for immediate accountability from state institutions.
- Condemnation of political hate speech: The order sends a strong signal that hateful, communal rhetoric by elected representatives—especially when directed at uniformed officers—is not protected political expression, but punishable criminal conduct.
The order stands as a significant constitutional moment: a court drawing the line where political speech turns into criminal propaganda, and affirming that even the highest offices must answer to the law.
The complete order may be read here.
Background
On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took up the matter on its own motion after coming across disturbing reports in multiple newspapers and digital platforms. News items published in Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar (Jabalpur edition), and Nai Duniya on the same date, along with video footage circulating online—including a YouTube link cited by the Court—revealed that a sitting minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, Vijay Shah, had made an offensive and communal remark during a public function held in Raikunda village, Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow.
The remark in question was aimed at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a senior officer in the Indian Army. Referring to her indirectly but unmistakably, Minister Shah called her the “sister of the terrorists” responsible for the killings in Pahalgam, in an apparent reference to her role as one of the Army’s spokespersons during Operation Sindoor. The Court noted that the language used was not only scurrilous and derogatory but also carried dangerous communal undertones. It held that the speech did not merely target an individual officer, but amounted to a broader attack on the armed forces—an institution that, the Court observed, still embodies values such as discipline, sacrifice, and integrity.
In view of the serious nature of the comment and the threat it posed to communal harmony and institutional dignity, the Court initiated proceedings without waiting for a formal complaint.
Related: