<p>New DelhiI: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme%20court">Supreme Court</a> on Friday expressed its displeasure with the Madhya Pradesh government for delaying its decision on granting sanction to prosecute its minister Kunwar Vijay Shah regarding his objectionable remarks about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, saying "enough is enough".</p><p>The woman officer shot into the limelight for holding media briefings during the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/operation%20sindoor">Operation Sindoor </a>in 2025.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the decision on the special investigation team's request for "grant of prosecution sanction against the minister was to come two weeks back."</p>.Remarks on Op Sindoor | Haryana govt refuses sanction to prosecute Ashoka University Professor: Supreme Court.<p>The SIT investigated the case on the apex court’s orders and sought the government's sanction to prosecute him.</p><p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the decision on sanction to prosecute the minister was still pending.</p><p>On this, the bench said, “Just comply with our order now. Enough is enough. The first thing should have been an apology. It was only after we took cognizance. List this after four weeks.”</p><p>Mehta said Shah's remarks might have been misread and added that what the minister said was unfortunate and possibly he intended to praise the lady officer.</p><p>However, the bench said, “It was not unfortunate. It was most unfortunate."</p><p>Mehta said he wanted to praise the lady but could not articulate himself. However, the bench did not agree with this contention.</p><p>The bench observed that as a politician, he knows how to articulately praise the lady officer. The bench said if it were a slip of tongue, he would have immediately apologised.</p><p>The bench also noted that the SIT report pointed out that Shah has a habit of making such comments.</p><p>Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Shah, submitted that he had publicly apologised for the statements. </p><p>The court, however, said that it was not a sincere apology.</p>
<p>New DelhiI: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme%20court">Supreme Court</a> on Friday expressed its displeasure with the Madhya Pradesh government for delaying its decision on granting sanction to prosecute its minister Kunwar Vijay Shah regarding his objectionable remarks about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, saying "enough is enough".</p><p>The woman officer shot into the limelight for holding media briefings during the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/operation%20sindoor">Operation Sindoor </a>in 2025.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the decision on the special investigation team's request for "grant of prosecution sanction against the minister was to come two weeks back."</p>.Remarks on Op Sindoor | Haryana govt refuses sanction to prosecute Ashoka University Professor: Supreme Court.<p>The SIT investigated the case on the apex court’s orders and sought the government's sanction to prosecute him.</p><p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the decision on sanction to prosecute the minister was still pending.</p><p>On this, the bench said, “Just comply with our order now. Enough is enough. The first thing should have been an apology. It was only after we took cognizance. List this after four weeks.”</p><p>Mehta said Shah's remarks might have been misread and added that what the minister said was unfortunate and possibly he intended to praise the lady officer.</p><p>However, the bench said, “It was not unfortunate. It was most unfortunate."</p><p>Mehta said he wanted to praise the lady but could not articulate himself. However, the bench did not agree with this contention.</p><p>The bench observed that as a politician, he knows how to articulately praise the lady officer. The bench said if it were a slip of tongue, he would have immediately apologised.</p><p>The bench also noted that the SIT report pointed out that Shah has a habit of making such comments.</p><p>Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Shah, submitted that he had publicly apologised for the statements. </p><p>The court, however, said that it was not a sincere apology.</p>