A minister against an army officer: Is it a crime or ‘error’?

This pertains to a minister from Madhya Pradesh Kunwar Vijay Shah, who contends that it was just a linguistic error and tenders a second apology. The insulting remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi was an unnecessary controversy. An apology was tendered.

Criminal charge

This BJP Minister was charged with a crime prima facie liable for offences under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), including section 196, which deals with actions that promote enmity between different groups. The High Court observed that this statement of the minister...

”encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India”.

The High Court further said:

“...Colonel Sofiya Qureshi 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 religious 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”.

It called the minister’s remarks ‘disparaging and dangerous’, not just to the officer in question, but to the armed forces itself’. It was not a mere reckless remark. A day after a viral clip showed Shah making insulting remarks against Qureshi, who was among the officials representing the armed forces during the briefing on Operation Sindoor, causing a huge uproar.

While speaking at a government event, Shah had said that the Prime Minister had sent a “sister from the same community” as those in Pakistan to avenge the April 22 terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam.

In a video message on May 23, Shah said:

“Jai Hind, I was deeply saddened and disturbed by the gruesome massacre that took place in Pahalgam a few days ago. I have always had immense love for my nation and respect for the Indian Army. The words spoken by me have hurt the community, religion, and countrymen. It was a linguistic error by me”.

It was not the first term of the legislature, he continued to get elected in Madhya Pradesh eight times. He says, “I did not intend to hurt the sentiments of any religion, caste or community”. However, it was way after he received flak from opposition parties, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court. The judiciary had to respond to this kind of vocabulary used by a politician from the BJP. The Supreme Court reprimanded Shah, calling his previous apologies insincere and “crocodile tears”, and pointed out that his remarks were “completely thoughtless” and said that being a minister, he should have maintained a standard much above others.

The SC questions

It was so serious that the Supreme Court needed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising three senior IPS officers, to probe the FIR against the minister, specifying that at least one of them should be a woman. The SIT was asked to submit its report by May 28.

Colonel Qureshi was one of the spearheads of India’s Operation Sindoor precision strikes against Pakistani terror infrastructure. A case has also been registered against Shah in Indore under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The case was registered in compliance with a High Court order.

The Constitutional ‘crime’:

The citizens of India should have called on the Governor to dismiss the Minister. It’s a clear violation of the oath made before God, this Minister that he abides by the Constitution of India.

The President, under Article 60, and the Governor Article 159, will swear to say he will ‘swear in the name of God, (or if you don’t believe in God, s/he should) solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will do the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.”

This article of the Indian Constitution outlines the oath or affirmation requirement for every Governor and any person discharging the functions of the Governor.

“I, A. B., do swear in the name of God that I will faithfully execute the solemnly affirm office of Governor (or discharge the functions of the Governor) of ………(name of the State) and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of ..……(in this case, this minister administered oath by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh).

Oath of the PM, the Chief Minister, and Ministers should be in accordance with the Constitution”.

“…bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I uphold the sovereign and integrity of India (this phrase was added after the Sixteenth Amendment Act 1963), that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union and that 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.”

Hence, the President and Governor should protect the Constitution, which is an onerous duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If a minister does not function as a public official, a citizen should at least request dismissal of such ministers for violating this constitutional oath, followed by disqualification from election at least for one term.

(The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)