BREAKING: Supreme Court Constitutes SIT To Probe FIR Against BJP's Vijay Shah Over Remarks On Col. Sofiya Qureshi
“We have the video clips with us,” observed Justice Kant, emphasizing the significance of a genuine apology. “Sometimes, an apology is a true expression of remorse; at other times, it’s a mere attempt to wriggle out of consequences or shed crocodile tears. Which kind is yours?," Justice Kant said;
The Supreme Court on Monday took a stern view of controversial remarks made by BJP leader Kunwar Vijay Shah, who referred to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists,” leading to a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to register an FIR against him.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh issued notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the FIR.
The Court also stayed Shah’s arrest, directing him to cooperate fully with the SIT.
Court Proceedings
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for Kunwar Vijay Shah, informing the Court that an SLP had been filed challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 15 May 2025. Singh also stated that Shah had tendered an apology. However, the Bench led by Justice Surya Kant sought to scrutinize the sincerity and nature of the apology.
“We have the video clips with us,” observed Justice Kant, emphasizing the significance of a genuine apology. “Sometimes, an apology is a true expression of remorse; at other times, it’s a mere attempt to wriggle out of consequences or shed crocodile tears. Which kind is yours?," Justice Kant said.
Justice Kant severely criticized Shah’s comments as “crass and thoughtless,” questioning why he had not made a genuine apology earlier. “This isn’t just contempt of court,” the Justice said. “Are you apologizing only because you are before us now? Is this the attitude you wish to display?," he added.
The Court further reminded Shah of his stature as a public figure and seasoned politician. “Your words carry weight and must be measured carefully. We could play your video here. The media has not captured its full gravity. You were on the verge of using abusive, filthy language but stopped yourself at the last moment,” Justice Kant remarked, highlighting the seriousness of the issue, an important matter relating to the Armed Forces, deserving of utmost respect and responsibility.
The Apology Disputed
While Shah’s counsel claimed there was “genuine regret,” Justice Kant rejected the apology video outright.
“You aren’t even willing to admit that you’ve hurt sentiments. You say ‘if I have hurt...’ That is not an apology,” he said. “You represent millions of people. They expect leadership and an example," Justice Kant said.
In response, Singh stated Shah was prepared to tender an unconditional and unambiguous apology.
Justice Kant, however, expressed skepticism about the timing and nature of the apology, questioning what had prevented earlier remedial steps.
Court Questions State on FIR and Investigation
The Bench also questioned the State of Madhya Pradesh about the progress in the FIR registration and investigation. “When the High Court had to intervene and virtually re-write your FIR, what have you done? Has it been examined whether a cognizable offense is made out?” Justice Kant asked.
Acknowledging public concern, the Court remarked, “People expect the State to act fairly. The High Court did its duty in suo motu intervention. Some complain they were not heard, this issue will be examined, but it may become academic. Look at the stature involved, you should have acted further by now.”
Constitution of SIT and Further Orders
Justice Kant directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three senior IPS officers from the Madhya Pradesh cadre, but crucially, none belonging to Madhya Pradesh, to ensure impartiality. The SIT must include at least one woman IPS officer.
The Bench further directed, "The Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, was directed to constitute the SIT by 10 PM the next day. The SIT will be headed by an Inspector General of Police (IGP), with the other two members holding the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) or above."
The Court ordered that the investigation of the FIR be entrusted solely to this SIT. The petitioner, Shah, has been directed to join and cooperate fully with the investigation. Meanwhile, his arrest shall remain stayed.
"Although following settled law, we do not ordinarily monitor investigations, in these peculiar facts, we direct the SIT to submit the outcome of its investigation through a status report," the Court said.
Warning Against Politicization and Next Hearing
Justice Kant warned that the matter must not be politicized. “He must face consequences. Let the law take its own course,” the Court stated.
The matter is listed for the next hearing on May 28.
Previously
Notably, on May 15, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the plea by BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister.
Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, appearing for Shah had mentioned the matter before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. “What kind of petition is this?” the CJI had asked, at the outset.
Makhija had submitted that Shah’s statement was misunderstood and that he had already expressed remorse, which was on record. “The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction,” she had added, seeking protection from coercive action until she could be heard.
"A person holding public office is expected to uphold a certain standard. Every sentence spoken by a minister must reflect a sense of responsibility," the CJI had remarked.
The CJI noted that the FIR had already been registered and advised her to approach the High Court for interim relief.
Background
On May 14, the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of Shah’s comments; made during a public event in Mhow, where he referred to Col. Qureshi in communal and sexist terms, implying she was sent as “revenge” against terrorists.
The High Court described the remarks as "dangerous," "disparaging," and using "language of the gutters," observing they amounted to prima facie offences under stringent criminal provisions. It further said such statements stigmatize the Muslim community and threaten constitutional values of unity and fraternity.
Case Title: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh