The Supreme Court slammed Rahul Gandhi over his remarks on the Indian Army, questioning his patriotism and seeking evidence for claims about Chinese incursions. The court granted interim relief while examining the defamation case filed in Lucknow, escalating a major political and legal showdown.
In a sharp rebuke to Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, the Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed serious displeasure over his alleged remarks concerning the Indian Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra. Gandhi had reportedly stated, “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian Army soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh,” referring to the December 9, 2022, face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in the Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh.
The matter came before a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi, who questioned the credibility of Gandhi’s claims and took strong exception to his statements about India losing 2,000 square kilometres of territory to China.
“How do you know that 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory were occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material?” the Bench asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Rahul Gandhi. “If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this,” the court remarked.
Justice Datta further grilled Gandhi’s counsel, asking, “When there is a conflict across the border, is it unusual to have casualties on both sides? Whatever you have to say, why don’t you say it in the Parliament? Why do you have to say this in social media posts?”
These remarks came as the Supreme Court heard Gandhi’s plea seeking relief from a criminal defamation case lodged in Lucknow. The case stems from a complaint filed by Udai Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation, who alleged that Gandhi’s comments were “false and baseless,” with the intent to “demoralise the Indian Army” and damage national morale.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s plea to quash the criminal defamation proceedings. In its May 2025 ruling, a single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi stated that even a third party, not directly named, can be considered an “aggrieved person” if they feel defamed by public statements.
The High Court also held that the summoning order issued by the trial court was legally sound. “The trial Court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant (Gandhi) to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case,” the judge noted.
Gandhi had appeared before the MP-MLA court in Lucknow following the trial court’s order and secured bail by furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 and two sureties of a similar amount. The court had earlier issued multiple summonses, which Gandhi failed to comply with.
Despite defending Gandhi’s right to raise matters of national importance in the public domain, Singhvi was confronted by the Bench with questions about the appropriateness and factual accuracy of such public statements. The court agreed to examine the broader issue raised by Gandhi’s legal team: whether issuing a mandatory notice to a proposed accused at the pre-cognisance stage should be a legal requirement.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has granted interim relief to Gandhi, staying the summoning order passed by the Lucknow trial court, while it awaits responses from both the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant.
The case has ignited a fresh political debate, with the BJP seizing the opportunity to accuse Gandhi of defaming national institutions and the military, while the Congress continues to assert that raising concerns about national security should not be criminalised.
| Also Read: BJP Slams Congress leader Rahul Gandhi Over Galwan Clash |
As the top court begins to examine the legal and constitutional implications of the case, the focus remains on the balance between free speech, national interest, and the accountability of public figures. With the upcoming parliamentary sessions and possible political ramifications, this case is likely to remain in the national spotlight.
