Rejecting the apology by Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks purportedly targeting Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team to look into the matter, reported Bar and Bench.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh stayed Shah’s arrest and ordered him to join the investigation, according to The Indian Express.

“We are constituting a SIT with three IPS [three Indian Police Service] officers and one should be the rank of IG [Inspector General of Police] or DGP [Director General of Police] rank,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying. “All of them should be [from] outside the state. It is a litmus test and we want the state to submit the SIT report to us. We would like to have a very close watch.”

One of the three Indian Police Service officers in the team should be a woman, the bench added. It ordered the director general of police to constitute the SIT by 10 am on Tuesday.

The matter pertains to remarks made by the BJP leader at an event in Mahu on May 13.

Shah had said that those who had widowed the daughters of India had been taught a lesson by Prime Minister Narendra Modi “by sending the sister from their own community”. He repeated the remark immediately after saying it the first time.

While the BJP leader did not name a person, Opposition parties had alleged that the minister was alluding to Qureshi, one of the official spokespersons during the foreign ministry and defence ministry’s media briefings relating to Operation Sindoor.

On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and ordered the registration of a case against Shah. The High Court also observed that Shah’s remarks referred to “none other but” Qureshi.

The BJP leader subsequently moved the Supreme Court.

On May 13, Shah apologised and said that his remark should not be viewed “in a different context”.

“I want to tell people that my speech is not in that context,” The Indian Express quoted him as saying. “They are our sisters, and they have taken revenge with great strength along with the armed forces.”

Shah had said that he was ready to apologise “10 times” if his remark had hurt “society and religion”.

The minister had also issued a fresh apology the next day, saying that he was “ashamed and saddened” by his comments. “Our country’s sister Sofiya Qureshi ji has worked rising above caste and society while fulfilling her national duty,” he added.

During the hearing on Monday, advocate Maninder Singh, representing Shah, told the Supreme Court that he had already publicly apologised for his remarks.

“What kind of apology?” Live Law quoted the bench as saying. “What is that apology? Sometimes people apologise to wriggle out of legal liabilities. Sometimes crocodile tears. What kind of apology is yours?”

Describing the remarks made by Shah as “crass” and “completely thoughtless”, the bench said that it was not ready to accept his apology.

“What prevented you from making a sincere attempt?” Kant said. “We don’t require your apology. We know how to deal with as per the law…We have rejected your apology…You are not even ready to take responsibility.”

The bench said that the entire nation was ashamed of the comments made by Shah, according to Live Law. “Meanwhile, you think how you will redeem yourself...entire nation is ashamed of...we are a country that firmly believes in rule of law,” Live Law quoted Kant as saying.

The Supreme Court also questioned the state government’s inaction in the matter, Bar and Bench reported. “What have you done after registering the FIR [first information report]?” the bench asked. “Has he [station house officer] examined what kind of offence is made out. What is the status.”

The state government should have done something more by now, it added.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case on May 28, according to The Indian Express.

Shah was booked under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, an act having an adverse effect on mutual harmony between communities and for making statements about a member of a community that adversely affect communal harmony.