In May 2025, the Supreme Court of India constituted two separate Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to conduct impartial investigations into two high-profile cases — one involving Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah and the other concerning Professor Ali Khan Mehmoodabad of Ashoka University. These SITs were formed to uphold transparency and independence in the judicial process, with clearly defined guidelines issued for their formation and operation.
Case 1: Kunwar Vijay Shah
On May 19, the first SIT was formed to investigate controversial remarks allegedly made by Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah, in which he referred to Colonel Sophia Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists.” Responding to the matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance and instructed the police to register an FIR.
In a directive aimed at ensuring neutrality, the Supreme Court ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) of Madhya Pradesh to establish a three-member SIT composed solely of IPS officers from the Madhya Pradesh cadre who are currently serving outside the state. The team must be headed by an Inspector General (IG)-rank officer and include at least one female officer.
Case 2: Ali Khan Mehmoodabad
The second SIT was established on May 21 to look into a contentious Facebook post by Professor Ali Khan Mehmoodabad regarding ‘Operation Sindoor.’ The post drew widespread criticism and legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court directed the Haryana DGP to form a three-member SIT composed of IPS officers not affiliated with either the Haryana or Delhi cadre. As in the first case, the inclusion of one female officer was mandated to ensure gender representation.
Why SIT Instead of CBI or NIA?
Addressing questions around the choice of SITs over central agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Supreme Court clarified that the NIA is currently overburdened and delays in its investigations could hinder timely outcomes. Justice Surya Kant, presiding alongside Justice N. Koteshwar Singh, emphasized the success of previous SITs and stated that the Court would closely monitor both investigations to uphold accountability and transparency.
These appointments reflect the judiciary’s commitment to neutral, inclusive, and expeditious investigative processes — bolstering public confidence in court-supervised inquiries.
