The Supreme Court on Monday stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi in connection with his controversial remarks about the Indian Army made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022. The top court, however, sharply rebuked Rahul for airing such views on social media instead of raising them in Parliament.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant, while granting interim relief to Rahul. The matter will be heard again after three weeks.
The case stems from a complaint filed by Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) with a rank equivalent to a Colonel. Filed through lawyer Vivek Tiwari, the complaint alleged that Rahul had made defamatory and derogatory comments about the Indian Army in the context of the December 9, 2022 border clash with China.
Rahul had reportedly said that "Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh"—a remark the complainant claims demoralised the armed forces.
During Monday’s hearing, the Supreme Court did not mince words in expressing disapproval of Rahul’s statements. “Why in social media post and not in Parliament? How do you get to know when 2,000 sq km was acquired by China? What is the credible material? A true Indian will not say this. When there is a conflict across the border, can you say all this? Why can't you ask the question in Parliament? Just because you have 19(1)(a) \[freedom of speech], you cannot say anything," the bench said.
Justice Datta further questioned, “Tell Dr. Singhvi, how do you get to know that 2,000 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.”
Rahul’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, defended the Congress leader’s remarks, arguing that opposition leaders have a duty to raise such concerns. “If he can't say these things which are published in the Press, he can't be a Leader of Opposition,” Singhvi submitted.
Responding to the apex court’s strong words, he added, “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.”
Singhvi also said Rahul’s remarks could not be grounds for criminal defamation filed by a third party. “But you cannot harass somebody like this with defamation charges. The High Court says the complainant was not a person aggrieved but defamed. High Court reasoning was novel, was not correct.”
Justice Datta countered Singhvi’s argument about casualty disclosure by stating, “When there is a conflict across the border, is it unusual to have casualties on both sides?” Singhvi clarified that Rahul’s intent was to highlight the need for government transparency, not to insult the armed forces.
He also argued that under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a prior hearing of the accused is mandatory before a magistrate can take cognisance of a complaint—an aspect allegedly overlooked in this case. Justice Datta noted that this point was not raised before the High Court. Singhvi acknowledged this lapse, explaining that the earlier challenge focused mainly on the complainant’s locus standi.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appeared for the complainant on caveat.
On May 29, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Rahul’s plea challenging the summoning order issued by an MP-MLA court in Lucknow in February 2025. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that under Section 199(1) of the CrPC, a complainant need not be the direct victim of defamation if they are otherwise "aggrieved" by the remarks. The top court accepted that Srivastava, having expressed personal anguish as a retired BRO director, qualified as such.
The High Court had further noted that freedom of speech does not extend to making defamatory remarks against the Indian Army. “The right to freedom of speech and expression does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to the Indian Army,” it held.
The complaint also alleged that Rahul had repeatedly made statements suggesting that the “Chinese army is thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh” and that the Indian media would not question the government on the issue.
Rahul had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court upheld the summons issued by the lower court, arguing that the case was motivated and filed in a mala fide manner intended to harass him for fulfilling his responsibilities as an opposition leader.