Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe Into Remarks By Vijay Kunwar Shah Against Col. Sofiya Qureshi, But Stays Arrest

The Supreme Court today directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the FIR lodged against Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his alleged derogatory remarks against Indian Army officer Colonel Sofia Qureshi. The Court also expressed serious reservations about the apology tendered by Shah.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh observed, “The kind of crass comments he made...completely thoughtlessly… and now you're harping on that apology. What prevented you from making a sincere attempt earlier? This is not just contempt of court. You’re submitting an apology only because you're here. Is this the attitude?”

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Shah, submitted that a second Special Leave Petition had been filed against the May 15 order, and that the petitioner had already tendered an apology. Justice Kant asked, “What is that apology? Where is it?”

Referring to the video clip, the Bench remarked, “We would like to see what kind of apology you have tendered. There is a meaning to the word ‘apology.’ Sometimes it's to wriggle out of consequences, sometimes it’s just crocodile tears.”

“You are a public figure. A seasoned politician. You should weigh your words when you speak...Media might not go into the depth of your video, but we saw it. You were at a stage where you were about to use abusive, filthy language… something stopped you. This is a serious issue...it concerns the Armed Forces. We must be responsible,” Justice Kant said.

Justice Kant added, “The least we can do is show some respect for the Army. They are on the frontlines.”

When Singh submitted that there was genuine regret, the Court observed, “If this video is your idea of genuine regret, we outrightly reject it. This is clearly an attempt to escape consequences. You aren’t even willing to admit you hurt sentiments. You say, ‘If I have hurt…’ You represent millions. They expect better. You must lead by example.”

On further submissions that the petitioner was ready to apologise without ambiguity, Justice Kant responded, “We leave it to you. You want to give a message that you're apologizing only because of the Court? What prevented you from making a sincere effort when the incident occurred? You know how deeply sentiments have been hurt. You should have acted sooner. Have you even watched your own video?”

Turning to the State Counsel, Justice Kant said, “When the High Court had to intervene and rewrite your FIR, what have you done? Has it even been examined whether any cognizable offence is made out? People expect that state action will be fair. The High Court did its job...they thought suo motu action was needed. If people now object that they were not heard, we will go into that. But at least up to this point, it may become academic. You should have done much more by now.”

The Court ordered the formation of an SIT, stating, “We are satisfied that the FIR requires to be investigated by an SIT. The investigation shall be entrusted to the SIT. Petitioner is directed to join and fully cooperate with the investigation. Subject to cooperation, his arrest shall remain stayed for now. While the Court will not monitor the investigation as per settled law, in this case, the SIT shall file a status report on the outcome of its investigation.”

Before concluding, Justice Kant addressed Singh and said, “Meanwhile, you may think about how to redeem yourself. The entire nation is ashamed. We are a country that believes firmly in the rule of law. Judges carry no prejudice against anyone. Orders of the Court are meant to harm none...that is a settled doctrine.”

The matter will be heard next on May 28, 2025.

Background

On May 15, 2025, when the matter was mentioned before the Bench of the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, the Bench had remarked, "When this country is undergoing such a situation, every sentence or word uttered by a minister has to be with a sense of responsibility.”

During an event, the minister described Col. Quraishi as the “sister of the terrorists” allegedly responsible for the Pahalgam incident that claimed the lives of 26 Indian civilians. He further remarked that Prime Minister Modi had “dispatched the terrorists’ sister to deal with them.

The High Court had noted that the Minister used “scurrilous and unwarranted language” against the officer, prompting the suo motu exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.

In its order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that the statements made by Shah were not only inappropriate but had the potential to undermine the morale and dignity of the armed forces, particularly a serving officer who was carrying out her official duties. “The armed forces… reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage… has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi", the High Court added.

The High Court recorded that the comments targeted Col. Qureshi personally and professionally, and that the statements appeared to be made with the intent to politicize a military operation and discredit the Indian Army’s communications. Observing that such statements could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court issued notice and initiated suo motu proceedings.

Cause Title: Kunwar Vijay Shah v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Diary No. 27093-2025)