SC censures Rahul Gandhi over remark on Indian Army, stays proceedings in defamation case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court here on Monday stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed against Leader of Opposition and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his remarks concerning the Indian Army in the context of the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China. While the court granted interim relief, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih voiced strong disapproval of Gandhi’s statements during the hearing.

Representing Gandhi, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi began by arguing that if opposition leaders are not permitted to raise critical issues, it would be detrimental to democratic discourse. “If he can't say these things which are published in the Press, he can't be a leader of opposition,” Singhvi argued.

Justice Datta, however, questioned the use of social media as a platform for such remarks. “Whatever you have to say, why don't you say in the Parliament? Why do you have to say this in the social media posts?” he asked.

Continuing his criticism, Justice Datta pressed further: “Tell Dr Singhvi, how do you get to know that 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory were occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without any...If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this.”

Responding, Singhvi said, “It is also possible that a true Indian will say that our 20 Indian soldiers were beaten up and killed and that it is a matter of concern.”

Justice Datta countered, “When there is a conflict across the order, is it unusual to have casualties on both sides?”

Singhvi clarified that Gandhi’s comments were meant to raise concerns about lack of transparency and to seek proper disclosure of information. But Justice Datta reiterated that there are appropriate forums to express such concerns. Singhvi acknowledged that Gandhi's remarks could have been more carefully worded, and described the case as an attempt to harass a public figure for performing his role as an opposition leader.

He also raised a legal issue under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that no prior hearing was given to Gandhi before cognisance of the criminal complaint was taken—an omission he claimed made the process procedurally flawed.

Justice Datta pointed out that this particular argument had not been raised before the High Court. Singhvi conceded the oversight, explaining that the High Court plea primarily contested the complainant’s standing. He questioned the court’s reasoning that someone who isn’t an “aggrieved person” can still be considered “defamed.”

Taking note of this point, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the issue further and issued a notice in response to Gandhi’s Special Leave Petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had denied his request to quash the defamation case. The court also granted a three-week interim stay on the proceedings.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appeared for the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, on caveat.

Earlier, on May 29, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s plea to cancel the defamation case and a summons order issued in February 2025 by a special MP-MLA court in Lucknow. In that order, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the right to freedom of speech does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army.

 The complaint, filed by Srivastava—former Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO)—alleged that Gandhi made derogatory statements during his Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022, in reference to a clash between Indian and Chinese troops on December 9, 2022. According to the complaint, Gandhi repeatedly claimed that Indian soldiers were being "thrashed" by the Chinese army in Arunachal Pradesh, and that the Indian press would not question the government about it.

The Lucknow court had found prima facie that Gandhi’s remarks could be demoralising to members of the armed forces and their families, prompting him to challenge the order before the High Court.
(With Live Law Inputs)