New Delhi, May 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday outright rejected the apology by Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his controversial comment on Col Sofiya Qureshi and ordered formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the incident.
The SIT comprising senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers has been asked to submit its status report by May 28. Shah, a BJP leader, has been directed to fully cooperate with the investigation.
“We are a country which follows rule of law. It is same for the highest to the lowest,’’ the court observed.
The court expressed deep disapproval of the Minister’s comment stating that he (Shah) had brought shame to the entire nation.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing Shah’s plea challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had directed the registration of a criminal case against him.
The High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of Shah’s alleged remark, Condemning the statement as “crass and shameful,” the apex court remarked “the entire nation is ashamed of you. It is for you to decide how you wish to redeem yourself.”
Mr Justice Kant took serious note of Shah’s attempt to tender an apology, dismissing it as insincere and manipulative. “We don’t need this apology. You’re not in contempt of court that you’re offering it here. You commit a wrong and then try to escape through a hollow apology. Is this your attitude, the court asked.
The bench observed that Shah’s statement had deeply hurt public sentiment and that his so-called apology appeared crafted only to avoid legal consequences.
“Sometimes people give artificial apologies just to escape. Some even shed crocodile tears. Which category do you fall in ?” the court asked.
The court further observed that Shah, a senior political figure, should have been far more cautious in his speech.
“You’re a public figure. Your words carry weight. From the video, it appears you were on the verge of using abusive language but stopped mid-sentence perhaps out of self-restraint or simply because you couldn’t find the right insult.”
Rejecting the Minister's claim of genuine regret, the court said, “If you call this genuine regret, we outright reject it. You’ve said, ‘If I’ve hurt anyone, then I apologize’ this kind of conditional apology is unacceptable. You don’t even acknowledge the harm caused.”
Clarifying that the high court had not passed a conviction but merely directed the registration of an FIR, the Supreme Court concluded, “We are a country governed by the rule of law. The same standards apply to all.”
UNI SNG GNK RB