SC pulls up MP govt over delay in prosecuting Vijay Shah for Col Qureshi remarks
Synopsis
The Supreme Court didn't mince words — calling Vijay Shah's remarks against Col Sofiya Qureshi 'most unfortunate' and dismissing his apology as a 'fake defence.' With an SIT report reportedly flagging a pattern of such comments, the bench's directive to the MP government to decide on prosecution sanction now carries unmistakable judicial weight.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 8 May 2025 pulled up the Madhya Pradesh government for failing to decide on prosecution sanction against Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah .
The remarks targeted Colonel Sofiya Qureshi , who had briefed media during Operation Sindoor .
CJI Surya Kant called the remarks 'most unfortunate,' rejecting the SG's characterisation of them as a mere slip of tongue.
The court dismissed Shah's written apology as a 'fake defence,' though SG Tushar Mehta noted Shah had also apologised on television with folded hands.
An SIT report before the court reportedly indicated Shah was 'in the habit of making such comments.' The matter has been posted for hearing after four weeks , with the MP government directed to decide on sanction considering the 'totality of circumstances.'
The Supreme Court of India on Friday, 8 May 2025 expressed sharp displeasure over the Madhya Pradesh government's failure to decide on granting sanction to prosecute Tribal Affairs Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his controversial remarks against Indian Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor. A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the state's non-compliance with its earlier directive to decide on the sanction within two weeks.
What the Supreme Court Said
The CJI Kant-led bench was unsparing in its assessment of Shah's remarks. When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta — clarifying he was offering a personal view and not the official stand of the Madhya Pradesh government — described the remarks as
Point of View
' 'fake defence,' 'in the habit of making such comments' — is unusually pointed for a bench still at the sanction stage. The court is, in effect, signalling to the Madhya Pradesh government that continued inaction will not be tolerated. What is notable is the SIT's sealed-cover finding on Shah's alleged pattern of such remarks: if accurate, this is not an isolated misstep but a conduct issue. The MP government's silence since the January directive raises its own questions — whether political considerations are shaping a legal decision that the apex court has already framed as a matter of institutional accountability to the armed forces.
NationPress
11 May 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Vijay Shah say about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi?
Tribal Affairs Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah made controversial remarks targeting Indian Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor. The exact phrasing was deemed so objectionable that the Madhya Pradesh High Court initiated suo motu proceedings directing registration of an FIR against him.
Why is the Supreme Court involved in the Vijay Shah case?
Shah approached the Supreme Court after the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed registration of an FIR against him in suo motu proceedings. The apex court granted him interim protection from arrest, constituted a three-member SIT including a woman IPS officer, and directed the state to decide on prosecution sanction within two weeks — a deadline the state has not met.
What did the SIT report say about Vijay Shah?
According to the Supreme Court, the SIT's sealed-cover status report indicated that Shah was 'in the habit of making such comments.' The SIT had also sought sanction to proceed against the minister, which the Madhya Pradesh government has yet to formally grant or deny.
What did the Supreme Court say about Vijay Shah's apology?
The CJI Kant-led bench questioned the sincerity of Shah's written apology, calling it a 'fake defence' made only because the court had taken cognisance. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Shah had also apologised on television with folded hands. The court maintained that a genuine slip of tongue would have prompted an immediate apology.
What happens next in the Vijay Shah case?
The Supreme Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to decide on granting prosecution sanction, taking into account the 'totality of circumstances.' The matter has been posted for hearing after four weeks, meaning the state must act before the next date of hearing.
