The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Madhya Pradesh government to take a final decision within two weeks on granting sanction to prosecute state minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for allegedly making objectionable and communal remarks against Indian Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in the wake of Operation Sindoor.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after noting that the Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by the apex court, had completed its probe and submitted its report in a sealed cover.
“You have been sitting over the SIT report since August 19, 2025. The statute casts an obligation on you and you must take a call. It is January 19, 2026 now,” the CJI told the counsel representing the Madhya Pradesh government.
The investigation pertains to Shah’s controversial comments directed at Col Qureshi, who along with Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, was part of the military’s public briefings during the high-profile Operation Sindoor. A video of Shah’s remarks, widely circulated on social media, sparked public outrage and drew sharp judicial scrutiny.
The SIT had sought the state government’s sanction to prosecute Shah under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (which replaces Section 153A of IPC), which deals with promoting enmity between groups on the basis of religion, race, and other grounds.
Despite the SIT’s recommendation, the prosecution could not proceed in the absence of mandatory prior approval from the state.
During the hearing, the state government submitted that it had not taken action yet as the matter was pending before the apex court. The bench rejected that justification and clarified that the pendency of the matter does not preclude the state from discharging its statutory duty.
“The investigation is complete. The state must now take a call,” the bench said, directing that the issue of sanction be decided within two weeks and a compliance report be filed before the court.
Apart from the original video, the SIT report also referred to other instances where Shah is alleged to have made additional objectionable remarks. Taking note of this, the court directed the SIT to investigate these fresh instances and submit a separate report indicating what action, if any, is warranted.
The court was unsparing in its criticism of Shah’s behaviour, particularly in regard to the apology he had claimed to issue. During earlier hearings, Shah’s counsel submitted that the minister had made a public apology online, which would be placed on record. However, the bench had questioned the genuineness of such an apology.
“What is an online apology? We are starting to have doubts about his intentions and bona fides,” the bench had remarked in an earlier hearing on July 28, 2025, also warning that Shah was “testing the court’s patience.”
On Monday, the CJI reiterated that “it is too late to tender any apology,” referring to the court’s earlier disapproval of the form and timing of the apology.
The controversy began when Shah, a sitting minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, allegedly made disparaging and communal remarks against Col Sofiya Qureshi during a public address. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had strongly criticised Shah’s conduct, describing his language as “scurrilous” and akin to the “language of the gutters,” and ordered registration of an FIR against him.
The Supreme Court later stayed the high court proceedings but constituted an SIT to investigate the FIR and submit a status report. The SIT completed its task in August 2025, but the matter stalled due to lack of prosecution sanction.
Shah later attempted to mitigate the damage by expressing regret and claiming he respected Col Qureshi “more than his sister.”
With the Supreme Court’s firm two-week ultimatum, the Madhya Pradesh government will now have to decide whether to grant permission for Shah’s prosecution under the BNS. The SIT’s further probe into Shah’s additional remarks could also open new fronts in the case.
The matter is expected to be taken up again after the compliance report is filed by the state.
