Supreme Court pulls up MP govt over delay on sanction to prosecute Vijay Shah for remarks on Col Sofiya Qureshi

Colonel Sofiya Qureshi at a media briefing. (File photo/ANI)

• Supreme Court questions MP govt delay on sanction to prosecute minister Shah
• Bench directs MP govt to decide on SIT's prosecution request as per law
• Shah's comments on Colonel Qureshi drew widespread backlash and legal action.

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Madhya Pradesh government over the time it has taken to decide on granting sanction to prosecute state minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his controversial remarks about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, one of the Army officers who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor, India’s cross-border military response against Pakistan.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the State to take a decision in accordance with law on the request made by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for prosecution sanction.

The SIT had been constituted earlier on the directions of the apex court to probe the matter.

SC flags inaction on SIT request

During the hearing, the Bench expressed displeasure at the State’s inaction despite the SIT having completed its probe months ago.

Referring to the timeline, the CJI observed, “You are sitting over the SIT report since August 19, 2025. Statute casts an obligation on you and you must take a call. It is January 19 now.”

The apex court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to decide within two weeks whether permission would be granted to prosecute Shah.

The court noted that the SIT’s report, submitted in a sealed cover, had examined multiple aspects of the case and had specifically sought sanction from the government to prosecute Shah.

Opening the sealed cover, the Bench recorded that no decision had been taken by the State so far.

The Madhya Pradesh government informed the court that it had refrained from acting on the SIT’s request because the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The Bench, however, was not convinced by this explanation.

“We are informed no action taken by State since matter pending here. We direct state of Madhya Pradesh to take an appropriate step for sanction in terms of law,” the court ordered.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Shah, submitted that his client had earlier tendered an apology for the remarks. The Bench was quick to reject the submission, remarking, “Where is the apology ? Nothing on record. Now it's too late also.”

Background of the controversy

The controversy traces back to remarks allegedly made by Shah at a public function in Raikunda village in the Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow) area. His statement -- “Those who widowed our daughters, we sent a sister of their own to teach them a lesson.” -- was widely criticised as a veiled reference to Colonel Qureshi and her religion.

Colonel Qureshi was among the Army officers who had briefed the press about Operation Sindoor, which was carried out after the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22 that claimed the lives of 26 Indian civilians.

The remarks drew sharp reactions across the country, with many calling for Shah’s removal from office. Taking suo motu cognisance, the Madhya Pradesh High Court strongly condemned the statement and directed the police to register an FIR against the minister.

Describing the comments as harmful, the High Court observed, “His comments are disparaging and dangerous, not just to the officer in question but to the armed forces itself.”

Justice Atul Sreedharan also issued a stern warning to law enforcement, saying, “To enforce the order of this Court, I will bring hell down, if need be.”

Following the High Court’s order, an FIR was lodged late on May 14 under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, provisions relating to acts threatening national sovereignty and promoting enmity between groups.

Shah subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s directions.

On May 16, 2025, the apex court took serious note of his remarks, refused to accept his apology, declined to stay the FIR, and instead ordered the formation of the SIT, while granting him protection from arrest.