Supreme Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi, Criticizes Remarks on Indian Army
The Supreme Court on Monday put a hold on criminal defamation proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, while expressing criticism over his remarks about the Indian Army during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022. The court emphasized that such statements are not expected from a "true Indian" and questioned Gandhi's choice of platform and language when discussing national security issues.
A bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih expressed their disapproval of Gandhi's comments, specifically his assertion that the Chinese Army had seized 2,000 square kilometers of Indian land, killed 20 soldiers, and assaulted Indian personnel in Arunachal Pradesh. These comments were made during a press interaction on December 9, 2022, in relation to the Yangtse sector clash in Arunachal.
The court was considering Gandhi's appeal against a May 29 order by the Allahabad High Court, which had declined to dismiss a trial court's February 11 summons in the defamation case. The complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired director of the Border Roads Organisation, claimed that Gandhi's statements were factually incorrect and demoralizing for the armed forces, potentially harming national unity.
Representing Gandhi, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Congress leader was exercising his right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), and that the remarks aimed to encourage more media scrutiny of important border issues. However, the court suggested that such remarks are more appropriately made in Parliament rather than through media or social platforms.
The bench questioned, “Why do you say this in the media? Were you there? How do you know these details?” while agreeing to review whether Gandhi was denied a proper hearing by the lower court and whether the complainant is an "aggrieved person" under defamation laws.
Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the complainant, opposed the stay and supported the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court announced that it would conduct a detailed hearing on the matter in three weeks.
The case remains significant due to its impact on balancing free speech with responsible discourse by public officials on military and national security topics.
