SC asks Madhya Pradesh to decide on sanction to prosecute minister for Colonel Sofiya Qureshi remark

The Supreme Court on Monday told the Madhya Pradesh government to decide within two weeks on granting the sanction to prosecute Bharatiya Janata Party leader and state minister Vijay Shah for his remarks allegedly targeting Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, Live Law reported.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Deepankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the Special Investigation Team the court had formed in May had filed its report and was awaiting sanction from the state government.

The sanction from the state government is necessary for the court to take cognisance of the offence under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to promotion of communal hatred and ill will.

The matter pertains to remarks made by the BJP leader at an event in Mhow on May 13.

Shah had said that those who had widowed the daughters of India had been taught a lesson by Prime Minister Narendra Modi “by sending the sister from their own community”. He repeated the remark immediately after saying it the first time.

While the BJP leader did not name a person, Opposition parties had alleged that the minister was alluding to Qureshi, one of the spokespersons during the media briefings relating to Operation Sindoor held by the external affairs ministry and the defence ministry.

On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo moto cognisance of the matter and ordered the registration of a case against Shah. The High Court had also observed that Shah’s remarks referred to “none other but” Qureshi.

Shah was subsequently booked under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, an act hurting harmony between communities and for making statements about a member of a community in a manner that could adversely affect communal harmony.

The BJP leader had moved the Supreme Court.

On May 13, Shah apologised and said that his remark should not be viewed “in a different context”.

“I want to tell people that my speech is not in that context,” The Indian Express had quoted him as saying at the time. “They are our sisters, and they have taken revenge with great strength along with the armed forces.”

Shah had said that he was ready to apologise “10 times” if his remark had hurt “society and religion”.

The minister had also issued another apology the next day, saying that he was “ashamed and saddened” by his comments. “Our country’s sister Sofiya Qureshi ji has worked rising above caste and society while fulfilling her national duty,” he added.

Rejecting Shah’s apology, the Supreme Court on May 19 ordered the formation of the Special Investigation Team to look into the matter. The bench had also stayed his arrest and ordered him to join the investigation.

In August, the investigating team submitted its request to the state government for a sanction to prosecute the minister, The Hindu reported.

In the Supreme Court on Monday, the chief justice told advocate Sridhar Pottaraju, representing the state government, that “we are in January 2026 now”.

In response, Pottaraju said that the delay in granting the sanction may be because Shah’s petition seeking the quashing of the first information report filed against him was pending before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Shah, noted that the minister had apologised, adding that he was also cooperating with the investigation.

“You keep on cooperating,” The Hindu quoted Kant as having responded.

The Supreme Court noted that no apology had been filed on record, Live Law reported.

“It is too late to tender any apology,” the legal news portal quoted the bench as saying. “We had earlier commented on what kind of apology is submitted.”

At the earlier hearing on May 13, the Supreme Court had described the remarks made by Shah as “crass” and “completely thoughtless”, and added that it was not ready to accept his public apology.

“What kind of apology?” Live Law had quoted the bench as saying at the time. “What is that apology? Sometimes people apologise to wriggle out of legal liabilities. Sometimes crocodile tears. What kind of apology is yours?”

The court on Monday added that the report submitted by the Special Investigation Team had cited other instances where Shah had made allegedly objectionable remarks, Live Law reported. The investigation team has been asked to submit a report on the action proposed to be taken about these instances as well.