New Delhi, May 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court has refused to entertain an Intervention Application (IA) filed by Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur in support of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s suo motu direction for registering an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah.

The case pertains to allegedly communal and derogatory remarks made by Shah against Colonel Sofiya Quraishi, a decorated Army officer.

The IA was filed in response to Kunwar Shah's Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s May 14, 2025 order. Dr. Thakur, through the application, argued that Shah’s comments violated constitutional morality, the ministerial oath, and amounted to hate speech.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, however, declined to entertain the plea, with Justice Kant remarking, “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 Chaudhary, appearing for Dr. Thakur, urged the court to consider the broader implications, stating, “There are so many questions. The question is also about the violation of the oath.”

To this, Justice Kant responded, “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.”

The Bench clarified that the IA involved a separate cause of action, and added, “You know your remedy. We need not even point it out. You avail your remedy. We will welcome that.”

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, informed the Court that a report by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been submitted, but given the ongoing nature of the investigation, it would not be made public.

The Court recorded the status report filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, dated May 27, 2025, in compliance with its earlier directions.

The Bench observed, “Status report dated May 27, 2025, has been filed by DIG Police, Bhopal, inter alia pointing out that in compliance with order dated May 19, 2025, SIT comprising three IPS officers has been constituted.

The SIT visited the site, conducted an investigation, prepared a Hindi transcript of the speech, seized mobile phones, and recorded statements of seven witnesses. The investigation is still at a preliminary stage. More time has been sought. Interim directions shall continue.”

Further, the Supreme Court directed that the proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court be closed, as the apex court had taken cognisance of the matter:

“In view of the fact that this Court has taken cognisance of the matter, we request the High Court to close the proceedings on the date fixed.”

Dr. Jaya Thakur, a medical professional and women’s rights advocate, had described the High Court’s suo motu FIR direction as necessary to protect constitutional values and public order.

Her application detailed how the Minister’s remarks allegedly communalised a national security issue and targeted Col. Quraishi based on her religion.

The application referred to Shah’s comments calling the officer “the sister of terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam” and claimed the Prime Minister “sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out.”

A second controversial comment cited in the application involved inappropriate remarks made by the Minister during a public distribution event for girls’ clothing, where he allegedly said, “I didn’t know what they wear underneath.”

The application argued that such statements violated the Constitution and the oath of office under Schedule III, Form V, which mandates impartial service to all people. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), asserting that Shah’s remarks amounted to hate speech.

On May 15, 2025, when the matter first came before the Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, the Court had stressed that ministers must speak with a sense of responsibility, especially during sensitive times.

On May 19, the Court had expressed skepticism over the apology offered by Shah.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had strongly condemned the remarks in its May 14 order, calling them “scurrilous and unwarranted,” and stating that Shah had “used the language of the gutters” against a serving Army officer.

The Court emphasised that such comments not only harmed the dignity of the armed forces but could also amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, and having declined intervention by Dr. Thakur, the onus of further legal recourse rests with her before an appropriate forum. UNI SNG SSP