SC Orders MP Govt To Decide On Minister’s Prosecution Over Col Sofiya Remark
SC directs Madhya Pradesh to decide on prosecuting BJP's Kunwar Vijay Shah for remarks on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
advertisement
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to decide within two weeks whether to grant sanction for prosecution of state minister and BJP leader Kunwar Vijay Shah. The directive follows allegations that Shah made objectionable remarks about Indian Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi after Operation Sindoor. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to probe the matter has completed its inquiry and submitted its final report to the state government, which has yet to act on the request for sanction.
According to Maktoob Media, the Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi, instructed the state to file a status report before the next hearing. The court was informed that the government had not yet decided on the sanction due to the matter’s pendency before the Supreme Court. The SIT’s investigation was completed, and its report was submitted to the state in August 2025.
As reported by The Indian Express, the Chief Justice noted that the state had been “sitting on the SIT report since August 19, 2025,” and emphasized the statutory obligation to make a decision. The SIT sought sanction to prosecute Shah under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which addresses promotion of communal hatred and ill-will. The court directed the state to take an appropriate step for sanction in accordance with the law.
As highlighted by Bar and Bench, the Supreme Court questioned the delay in granting sanction, noting that the SIT’s request had been pending for several months. The bench opened the SIT’s sealed cover report and observed that the investigation had concluded, with the only remaining step being the state’s decision on prosecution. The court reiterated, “We direct state of Madhya Pradesh to take an appropriate step for sanction in terms of law.”
“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,” Chief Justice Surya Kant stated.
In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Shah allegedly referred to Colonel Qureshi as the “sister of terrorists” during a public event, a remark widely interpreted as communal and derogatory. Coverage revealed that the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of the comments, ordered the registration of an FIR, and described the remarks as “crass” and “completely thoughtless.” The FIR was lodged under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The SIT, formed on the Supreme Court’s orders, included senior police officials and completed its investigation promptly. Analysis showed that Shah’s comments were made at a public meeting following the Pahalgam terror attack, and the SIT’s report referenced other instances of alleged objectionable remarks by Shah.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Shah’s counsel stated that an apology had been placed on record and that Shah was cooperating with the investigation. However, reporting indicated that the bench found no formal apology on record and expressed dissatisfaction with the explanations provided.
“It is too late to tender any apology in this case. We are in 2026,” the bench remarked, rejecting the apology as insufficient.
The Supreme Court also noted that the SIT’s report cited additional instances where Shah had made allegedly objectionable remarks. As details emerged, the court asked the SIT to submit a report on proposed action regarding these other instances. The state government’s counsel explained that the delay in granting sanction was due to the pending Supreme Court proceedings.
Shah, a senior BJP leader and eight-term MLA, has previously faced controversy for remarks about various communities and public figures. Further information confirmed that the Supreme Court has reserved its order on related hate speech matters, reiterating the need for prompt action by enforcement agencies and compliance with court directions.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.