The Supreme Court expressed profound dissatisfaction on Monday with the apology issued by Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah regarding his defamatory remarks against Indian Army Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. The justices deemed his apology inadequate and insincere.
A bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, reprimanded the BJP minister for failing to deliver a genuine public acknowledgment of his statements, stating that his behavior was “testing the court’s patience.” The justices highlighted that the minister’s actions raised doubts about the sincerity of his intentions.
The controversy stemmed from Shah’s comments related to Colonel Qureshi, who had recently briefed the nation on the Indian Army’s operations during the military campaign known as Operation Sindoor. Following the operation, a video surfaced showing the minister making derogatory remarks that drew widespread condemnation.
During the hearing, Shah’s legal representative, K. Parmeshwar, informed the court that an apology had been posted online and indicated that it would be submitted for the court’s records in the next session. However, the bench clarified that a mere online apology would not suffice and stressed the need for a more significant admission of wrongdoing.
As the proceedings progressed, the court sought updates on the ongoing investigation from a member of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), directing the team to file a status report by August 13. The court noted that the SIT had thus far interviewed 87 individuals and continued to assess their statements.
The three-member SIT was established following orders from the Supreme Court, which instructed the investigators to push the inquiry to a logical conclusion within a stipulated 90-day period. The bench announced that the case will be revisited on August 18.
The fallout from Shah’s remarks has been severe. In an earlier hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had condemned the minister’s language as “language of gutters,” underscoring the gravity of the allegations leveled against him. The ongoing discussion in court reflects the serious implications of the minister’s statements and his responsibility as a public figure.
