State outlines reasons for refusing prosecution sanction against Shah
Shah’s electoral record strengthens his political standing within BJP
Earlier remarks had also triggered political action against him
Madhya Pradesh is preparing to defend in the Supreme Court its decision not to sanction the prosecution of senior cabinet minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his remarks on Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi.
The state’s response is expected to be filed in the coming days after review by legal experts, the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister’s Office.
The Cabinet decided on August 25 not to grant sanction to prosecute Shah. The recommendation was then sent to Governor Mangubhai Patel, who approved the Cabinet’s decision.
Five-point Defense
The state’s case rests on five broad arguments. First, the government plans to tell the court that no individual came forward to file a complaint against Shah after the controversial statement. It will also argue that, despite the public and political uproar, there was no private complainant seeking criminal action against the minister.
Second, the government is expected to say that Shah did not name Colonel Qureshi in his statement. It will further argue that he did not intend to insult her or any other individual through what he said.
Third, the Cabinet is relying on Shah’s repeated apologies. According to the proposed response, Shah apologised three times and also put his regret in writing. The government has described the episode as a human error and is expected to argue that the apologies, along with the absence of deliberate intent, weigh against criminal prosecution.
The fourth plank is communal impact. The state is expected to argue that Shah’s remarks did not disturb communal harmony. Its position is that there was no real breach of communal peace and no intention on Shah’s part to create one.
Shah's Political Weight
Shah carries unusual political weight in the BJP. He has won eight straight Assembly elections since 1990 and has remained a central figure in Madhya Pradesh politics for more than three decades.
Across eight terms as an MLA, he has served in governments from the Uma Bharti period to the current Mohan Yadav administration. He has handled five portfolios, heading the Tribal Welfare Department three times and the Forest Department twice. He has also held charge of School Education, Tourism and Culture, and Food and Civil Supplies.
His influence runs deeper than office. Shah is a scion of the Makrai royal family and belongs to the Rajgond clan. He is seen as one of the BJP’s leading tribal faces in the state, especially among Gond voters.
That matters electorally. Scheduled Tribes account for around 22 per cent of Madhya Pradesh’s population. The state has 47 Assembly seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes and tribal voters shape results in many more constituencies. The Gond community is among the state’s biggest tribal groups and makes up a large share of its tribal population.
Shah’s base has held for decades. He has dominated Harsud and nearby areas for nearly 40 years. His run of eight consecutive wins has made him one of the BJP’s most entrenched regional leaders. That is why any action against him is politically difficult for the ruling party.
Earlier Controversies
This is not Shah’s first controversy. In 2013, remarks concerning women at an event in Jhabua drew criticism and led to his removal from the Cabinet. He stayed out for about four months before returning to ministerial office.
The current case began after a video surfaced in May 2025 showing Shah making objectionable remarks in the context of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. Qureshi had come into national focus during media briefings on Operation Sindoor.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court then took suo motu cognisance of the remarks, criticised Shah sharply and directed police to register an FIR on charges that included promoting enmity and hatred. The matter later reached the Supreme Court, which sought a status report from the Special Investigation Team set up by the state government.
Shah later expressed regret. The Supreme Court, however, questioned whether his apology was adequate and pulled him up over its nature. That scrutiny now sets the stage for the state’s formal defence of its refusal to sanction his prosecution.
