More than a year after he made abominable comments against a decorated officer of the Indian Army, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Vijay Shah has remained in office despite the higher judiciary taking the BJP government to task over the delay in deciding on a request for sanction to prosecute him.
While addressing a public event near Indore in May 2025, within days of Operation Sindoor, the motormouth minister had indirectly referred to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as ‘sister’ of terrorists involved in the Pahalgam terror attack. The Colonel was among the NDA government’s spokespersons who briefed the media on India’s strikes against Pakistan.
The loose-tongued minister got away despite widespread anger over his controversial remarks because the Mohan Yadav government and the party high command in Delhi chose to look the other way. The minister began with an insincere apology, followed by a conditional one and eventually an unconditional version.
It had taken a directive from the MP High Court for the government to lodge an FIR against Shah. It’s been nearly a year since the court-ordered Special Investigation Team (SIT) submitted its report, but the state government has dragged its feet in granting prosecution sanction.
While the legal proceedings may take longer, nothing should have prevented the party from stripping him of his ministerial responsibility. Neither was the minister misquoted nor did he claim he was. It’s common for politicians and ministers to blame the media for misquoting or quoting them out of context.
It was only when the minister realised that the higher judiciary was seriously watching the developments in the case that he tendered another apology in February 2026, saying the comments were made in the excitement of patriotic fervour in the wake of Operation Sindoor. The apology didn’t work as the courts kept the pressure on the government. And yet, he escaped action.
Shielded by political obstinacy
The high command’s inaction was dictated by the logic that it did not want to succumb to external pressure and crack the whip against a minister lest it set a precedent. However, the extraordinary street mobilisation by Gen Z that led to Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation over the NEET examination paper leak case has made the government look vulnerable.
When Shah’s case comes up for hearing in the apex court on August 7, the government will have a lot to answer. In May this year, the Supreme Court questioned the MP government over its failure to comply with its previous direction asking it to decide on sanction within two weeks.
Used to making double-entendre remarks, the minister had courted a slew of controversies even before. But he was penalised only once after he made an alleged pass at then Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s wife in 2013. The Cabinet minister explained that he spoke for nearly 45 minutes, but the media highlighted only his remarks directed at the CM’s wife.
Double standard of accountability
For the sake of argument, let’s accept the NDA government’s initial stand that Pradhan was not directly involved in the paper leak and that the actual perpetrators of the crime were arrested. After standing its ground for weeks, the government succumbed, asking Pradhan to put in his papers.
In comparison, Shah’s transgression took place in full public view, and he apologised after courts expressed displeasure. While some BJP leaders expressed mild disapproval, Union Minister Chirag Paswan had said that if anyone from his party had made such a comment, he would have immediately expelled him for life. The BJP high command was in a position then to ignore the comments by a coalition minister.
Selective immunity at the top
Also, if mere apology, or a series of apologies, helps a minister to go scot-free, why should the privilege not be extended to commoners, or other politicians, many of whom are jailed for comments on social media? The government will have to make its stand clear on August 7 or in further hearings.
