The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticised the Madhya Pradesh government for delaying its decision on granting sanction to prosecute BJP minister Vijay Shah over his controversial remarks targeting Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed anger over the delay and directed the state government to take a decision within four weeks.
“Just comply with our order now. Enough is enough,” the Chief Justice told the state government during the hearing.
The court pointed out that it had already directed the Madhya Pradesh government in January to decide within two weeks whether sanction should be granted to prosecute the minister. However, no final decision has been taken so far.
Remarks Sparked National Controversy
The case relates to remarks made by Vijay Shah during a public event in May 2025 after Operation Sindoor. During his speech, Shah allegedly referred to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in a communal manner. Opposition parties accused him of insulting the Army officer.
Although Shah did not directly name Qureshi, the Madhya Pradesh High Court later observed that the comments were clearly aimed at her and ordered police to register an FIR against the minister.
The FIR included charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to promoting enmity between communities, hurting communal harmony and endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Supreme Court Questions Minister’s Apology
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, described Shah’s remarks as “unfortunate” and argued that the minister may have intended to praise the Army officer but “could not articulate properly.”
The Supreme Court, however, was not convinced.
“Political personalities are very articulate. They say what they want to,” the Chief Justice remarked.
The bench also questioned the sincerity of Vijay Shah’s apology, noting that it came only after the courts intervened.
“The first thing should have been an apology,” the court observed.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Shah, argued that the minister had apologised the next day and even appeared publicly with folded hands.
But the court responded that “writing a letter is not an apology” and said the response appeared more like a legal defence.
SIT Report Mentioned in Court
The bench also referred to the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was formed earlier on Supreme Court directions to investigate the case.
According to the court, the SIT report suggested that Shah had a history of making similar controversial remarks in the past.
“Let the state consider the totality of circumstances and take a call,” the bench said while directing the government to submit a compliance report after four weeks.
