Bhopal: Bharatiya Janata Party minister Vijay Shah has not stepped down, even after the Madhya Pradesh high court has taken suo motu action and ordered an FIR against him for his communal and derogatory remarks targeting Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. A day ago, the Supreme Court also ordered the investigation of the first information report against him, rejecting his apology.“The entire nation is ashamed of you. It is up to you how you redeem yourself,” the Supreme Court said on May 19.While a few party leaders, including former chief minister Uma Bharti, have acknowledged the controversy, the party has neither condemned the statement nor pressed for his resignation, signalling a total lack of internal accountability.Instead, chief minister Mohan Yadav has defended the silence, shifting blame onto the Congress and insisting that his government has followed the court’s directions.When even the judiciary steps in to act against hate, why does the political leadership stay silent?In a public rally in Mhow on May 12, Shah referred to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “terrorist’s sister,” linking her Muslim identity to terrorism. Ironically, while the BJP has launched Tiranga Yatras to celebrate Operation Sindoor and honour the Indian Army, the same party has continued to shield a minister who made communal remarks against a decorated Army officer.Court invokes national security in rare action against hate speechThe Madhya Pradesh high court, while ordering an FIR on May 14, noted:“At the function held in Raikunda, the minister made a nauseating remark against Col. Sofiya Quraishi by way of an innuendo, which can refer to none other than her alone.”The Court further observed:“Prima facie, the statement imputes separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.”Within hours of this order, the Manpur police station in Indore registered an FIR against the minister under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, section 196(1)(b) for promoting enmity and disharmony between groups; and section 197(1)(c) for making remarks that incite hatred between religious or caste communities.Vijay Shah later apologised for his statement and is understood to have gone underground – there is no information on his whereabouts.In April 2023, the Supreme Court ordered all states to register cases against hate speech, warning of contempt for non-compliance. Despite this, a 2024 India Hate Lab report shows Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh lead in hate speech cases, making up nearly half the incidents, with many leaders facing no action.A slur against the Army, not just a communityAdvocate Pratyush Mishra told The Wire that the court orders show rare judicial courage and will defend the court’s conscience regardless of what follows. The high court sent a strong message by invoking Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with national security, he said.“It wasn’t just hate speech – it was a direct attack on the Army, making it a national concern beyond communal slurs. There have been many hate speech incidents. How often has the court intervened? The Supreme Court has repeatedly said the administration must act on hate speech, yet nothing happens. In this case, the trigger may have been a communal remark, but what pushed the court into action was the fact that the slur targeted a serving Army officer. Hate speech against Muslims was an enzyme; it was the Army’s dignity that became the catalyst,” he said.He added that the court also said something important: that the Army is the last surviving institution upholding national integrity. The court order said:“The armed forces, perhaps the last institution existing in this country, reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage with which any citizen of this country who values the same can identify themselves with, has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi [Sofiya Qureshi].”Mishra believes that this is a slap on the face of society. “What happened to other institutions? The judge told the truth – a fact which separates the judiciary from everyone else. Ideally, the minister should resign, not just because he holds office, but because he is a cabinet minister. Yet the FIR does not even describe the crime properly,” Mishra added.Gandhian thinker and activist Chinmay Mishra told The Wire that the high court’s suo motu action reflects the awareness that ordinary citizens often lack the power to challenge hate speech, allowing it to go unchecked.“What we’ve seen since April 22 is deeply disturbing. Abuse, even when directed at an ‘enemy’, is still hate speech. The court passed an order one day and reviewed it the next – this urgency reveals how seriously they took the matter. The way they commented on the FIR, saying it looked like it was designed to protect the accused, is telling. It shows how the system shields the powerful. The fact that the judiciary had to step in like this shows a complete failure of the state machinery,” he said.When the high court heard the matter on May 15, it expressed disappointment over the way the FIR was filed. The court noted that the FIR appeared to be deliberately vague, stating it had been registered “in such a manner leaving sufficient space open so that, if challenged under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Section 482 of CrPC), it may be quashed.” It pointed out the absence of crucial details describing the specific actions of the accused that would constitute the offences.Politics shields minister from actionThis isn’t the first time Vijay Shah has stirred controversy. In 2013, while serving as a cabinet minister under chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, he made a sexist remark directed at Chouhan’s wife, Sadhna Singh, saying, “Kabhi devaron ke saath bhi chala karo, pati ke saath to roz jaati ho (You should go out with your brothers-in-law too, you go out with your husband every day).” The comment caused outrage and led to his resignation, though he was reinstated within months.The BJP this time may not want to act against Vijay Shah because of his political and symbolic importance. A powerful tribal leader, Shah has represented the Harsud constituency since 1990 and held multiple ministerial roles.As reported by The Print, Vijay Shah is a descendant of the Raj Gond royal family of Makrai. According to the 2011 Census, the Gonds – over 43 lakh in number – are the second-largest tribal group in Madhya Pradesh. With 47 assembly seats reserved for tribal candidates and several others influenced by tribal voters, Shah’s presence is strategically crucial for the BJP.BJP spokesperson Sanvar Patel told The Wire that the party has taken the court’s directives seriously and that the matter is under inquiry. “We have a disciplinary committee, and senior leaders are discussing the issue. Whether the minister’s resignation was sought remains internal,” he said.He added that the party believes in maintaining decorum in public language and will act if someone crosses the line. “Colonel Sofiya Qureshi is a brave daughter of India and a symbol of women’s strength – our ‘Ladli Behna’. The BJP stands firmly for women’s empowerment beyond caste or religion. We ended triple talaq, which became a social evil. The Modi government is committed to upholding the dignity and improving the lives of all women,” he claimed.Meanwhile, two days ago, Congress workers staged a protest outside the Raj Bhavan wearing black uniforms and shouting slogans demanding Vijay Shah’s resignation. The police detained and manhandled them.A system that shields power, not peopleChinmay Mishra said the BJP’s inaction reflects not helplessness but intent.“Only Uma Bharti spoke. The rest stayed quiet – that’s indirect support. When a government with such a majority can’t ask a minister to resign, it’s protecting its own, giving them the sense that they can say anything, and nothing will happen,” he added.He said that Vijay Shah’s words show deep-seated prejudice, and how emboldened the minister feels.He also highlighted the fact that if institutions depend solely on individual judges, they become fragile.