Both the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday chastised state minister and BJP leader Vijay Shah for his derogatory comments against Indian Army Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.

Shah had moved the apex court to quash an FIR lodged against him for his comment.

“When this country is undergoing such a situation, every sentence or word uttered by a responsible minister has to be with a sense of responsibility," Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai told Shah's counsel. “A person holding such an office is expected to maintain such a decree... every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility.”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, too, took umbrage at the delay in the filing of the FIR against Shah, and its wording. The high court ordered that it will monitor the probe against the minister who had described Col Qureshi as a “sister” of terrorists.

Earlier in the day, the high court expressed its dissatisfaction with the FIR saying it did not inspire confidence.

“In view of the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR has been registered which does not inspire confidence in this court. Under circumstances the court feels compelled to ensure that it monitors the investigation without interfering with the independence of the investigating agency but only to the extent of monitoring,” observed the bench.

The HC bench said it would not interfere in the investigating agency’s independence but would ensure that the probe is not influenced by any external pressure or direction.

On Wednesday, taking suo motu cognisance of Shah’s reported remarks, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered an FIR be filed against Shah within four hours. Though chief minister Mohan Yadav gave the go-ahead, the court was informed on Thursday morning that an FIR had been filed against the minister.

“I am sure you have read it. It has been drafted in such a way that it can be quashed. Where are the ingredients? Who drafted this? The content must be in the FIR. If the court order is annexed, can it be read as part of FIR?” asked the court.

The division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed: “The state has complied and has registered the FIR. The offence is under 152, 196 (1)(b), 197(1)(c) of BNS. This court has examined para 12 of FIR which must lay down ingredients of the offence by connecting it to act of offender. The FIR is brief. However, the briefness of the FIR is not the problem. 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 offences registered which have been registered against him?.”

The division bench observed the para 12 in the FIR was a reproduction of the court’s order made on Wednesday and did not specify how the actions of the offender justified the sections he has been charged under.

“FIR can be quashed where ingredients/contents of para 12 which provides for description of the actions of accused/suspect.. has not been reproduced in the particular para,” the bench observed. “This FIR has been registered in such a manner so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the same maybe quashed as it is deficient in material particulars.”

While directing the minister to go back to the Madhya Pradesh high court, the Supreme Court said it would hear the matter again on Friday.