In a stern and unequivocal rebuke, the Supreme Court of India has refused to accept an apology from Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah, ordering a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the FIR filed against him for his offensive comments directed at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. The court labelled Shah’s apology as “crocodile tears,” making it clear that remorse delivered under duress would not stand in the face of judicial scrutiny.
The incident stems from derogatory remarks made by Shah, a senior BJP leader, about Colonel Qureshi, a decorated officer of the Indian Army. The Supreme Court termed his comments “crass” and “shameful,” asserting that such statements demean the dignity of the armed forces and undermine the spirit of public service. “The entire country is proud of our Army, and you made this statement. You should be ashamed,” said Justice Surya Kant during the proceedings.
The court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the language and tone used by Shah, noting that he appeared close to using “very filthy” words in publicly available video footage. It emphasized that public figures must lead by example and be held accountable for their words and actions.
To ensure an impartial investigation, the court directed the Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police to form a three-member SIT headed by an Inspector General-rank officer. The panel must include at least one woman officer. The SIT is mandated to submit its first report by May 28, reflecting the court’s urgency in addressing the issue.
In questioning the sincerity of Shah’s apology, the court criticized its conditional nature. “This is not the way to seek apology,” it remarked, highlighting that genuine contrition must be free of caveats or self-justification.
This decision marks a significant stand by the judiciary on two counts: the accountability of public officials and the respect owed to the country’s armed forces. It sends a strong signal that misuse of public platforms to disparage national institutions will not be shielded by political influence or half-hearted apologies. The court’s decisive action is a reaffirmation of its role as a guardian of public dignity and constitutional values.
