SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court has dismissed the Jammu and Kashmir administration’s appeal against a High Court order that quashed an FIR filed against Bilquis Mir, India’s first woman to serve as a kayaking and canoeing judge at the Paris Olympics 2024.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi upheld the High Court’s decision, refusing to interfere with the order that had set aside the corruption case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). While condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the Bench found no merit in the petition.
“Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Hence, the special leave petition stands dismissed,” the Supreme Court said in its July 27 order.
The Jammu and Kashmir administration had approached the apex court challenging a July 2025 judgment of the High Court, which had quashed the FIR against Mir and criticised the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
In its judgment, the High Court observed that the investigation appeared to be driven by a desire to harass the decorated sports official rather than uncover any wrongdoing. The court remarked that the ACB had even examined whether Mir’s university examination answer sheets had been properly evaluated, calling the approach unjustified.
Justice Sanjay Dhar had described the case as a “witch-hunt” launched against Mir by vested interests and said the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court quashed the FIR.
The judgment also referred to a letter sent by the vice-president of the Indian Olympic Association to the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary in February 2024, highlighting Mir’s selection as an Olympic judge as a matter of national pride. The communication described her achievement as a landmark moment not only for Jammu and Kashmir but also for women in Indian sport.
The High Court had criticised the treatment meted out to accomplished sportspersons, observing that instead of recognising their achievements, authorities appeared intent on subjecting them to unnecessary scrutiny.
It further noted that India’s inability to build a strong sporting culture despite decades of Independence was reflected in the way distinguished athletes and officials were treated. The court also questioned the ACB’s attempt to criminalise the alleged non-acquisition of a technical qualification by Mir, saying it reflected poorly on the treatment of the country’s sporting achievers.
With the Supreme Court declining to interfere, the High Court’s order quashing the FIR against Mir remains in force.
