The State of Madhya Pradesh on Friday (May 8, 2026) told the Supreme Court that State Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah had intended to “praise” Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, but could not articulate himself properly.

Mr. Shah is accused of making disparaging remarks against the Army officer, who had briefed the media during “Operation Sindoor”.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted, “I am not justifying anything… But he possibly wanted to praise the lady… He had tendered an apology. He could not articulate and he wanted to praise… It is unfortunate.”

Chief Justice Kant responded that it was “most unfortunate”.

“We know that when a political personality wants to praise, how well they can do it. If he wanted to apologise, he should have done it immediately,” the Chief Justice told Mr. Mehta.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Mr. Shah, said a public apology had been issued the next day.

Chief Justice Kant observed that the apology came only after the court took cognisance of the matter. He said the apology appeared to be part of a “fake defence”.

“You should have gone with folded hands and tendered an apology… You feel as if you are above the law,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Mr. Singh submitted that Mr. Shah had apologised on television.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said a January 19, 2026 order had referred to “some earlier instances” involving Mr. Shah. These instances, however, were not investigated by the Special Investigation Team.

The Bench said the State must comply with its specific directions in the January 19 order, including taking a decision on the grant of prior sanction for prosecution. Mr. Mehta said the sanction request was pending with the State government. The request for prosecution sanction had been made to the State government in August 2025.

The top court also reiterated its January 19 request to the State to “make an endeavour to find out the details of the other instances attributed to the petitioner [Shah]”.

The court listed the case for hearing after four weeks, by which time the State has been asked to file a compliance report.