Bench questions factual accuracy of Gandhi’s claims, urges restraint in political speech. Case alleged Gandhi defamed Indian Army by implying China had taken Indian territory.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi, August 4 — The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim relief to Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi by staying the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him for his remarks concerning the Indian Army in the context of the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China. However, the relief came with sharp observations from the bench that questioned the propriety of Gandhi’s statements.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih. While the Court issued notice on Gandhi’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an Allahabad High Court order refusing to quash the case, it also made strong oral observations critical of Gandhi’s choice of words and forum for making such remarks.
Bench Questions Gandhi’s Credibility, Motive
At the outset, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, argued that it would be unfortunate if opposition leaders were not permitted to raise questions of national concern. “If he can’t say these things which are already published in the press, he can’t be Leader of the Opposition,” Singhvi contended.
Justice Datta, however, questioned the platform used by Gandhi. “Why don’t you say these things in Parliament? Why do you resort to social media posts?” he asked, indicating that statements on sensitive issues, especially related to the military, should be made with caution and preferably in institutional forums.
Supreme Court rebukes Shri Rahul Gandhi for irresponsible claim that Chinese occupied Indian Territory !
SC: How do you know 2000 Sqr km of Indian territory were occupied by Chinese ? A true Indian will not say this. https://t.co/ywa1FRa5ga
— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) August 4, 2025
The Court further challenged the factual basis of Gandhi’s claim that 2,000 square kilometers of Indian territory had been occupied by China. “Were you there? Do you have any credible material to support this? Why make such statements without proof?” Justice Datta asked pointedly, adding, “If you were a true Indian, you would not say such things.”
Singhvi responded that raising concerns about national security and demanding transparency cannot be unpatriotic. “A true Indian might also express alarm over the loss of 20 soldiers in Galwan. It’s a matter of national concern,” he said.
Justice Datta insisted that such concerns should be raised through the proper channels. “When there is a conflict at the border, casualties on both sides are not unusual,” he observed. Singhvi emphasized that Gandhi’s remarks were about the need for proper disclosure and transparency regarding the situation at the border, not about undermining the Army.
READ: End of an Era: Shibu Soren, Jharkhand’s Architect and Tribal Icon Dies
Singhvi acknowledged that Gandhi’s comments could have been worded more carefully but said that the criminal complaint was politically motivated. “This is harassment for fulfilling the duty of the Opposition—asking uncomfortable questions,” he said.
He also submitted that the trial court had erred by taking cognisance of the complaint without hearing Gandhi first, a requirement under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), India’s new criminal code replacing the CrPC. However, the bench noted that this argument had not been raised before the High Court.
Singhvi admitted this lapse, explaining that the challenge in the High Court was primarily focused on the complainant’s locus standi. He questioned the High Court’s reasoning that the complainant, while not a directly aggrieved person, could still be considered a “person defamed.”
Supreme Court Issues Notice, Grants Interim Stay
Taking note of the issues raised, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the case in detail and issued notice to the respondent. An interim stay on the proceedings was granted for three weeks.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appeared on caveat for the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO).
The criminal defamation case arises from Gandhi’s remarks made on December 16, 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra. The complaint alleges that Gandhi, referring to the December 9, 2022, clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh, made statements implying that Indian soldiers were being “thrashed” by the Chinese Army. The complaint also asserts that Gandhi criticized the Indian press for not questioning the government about the incident.
High Court Had Denied Gandhi Relief
Earlier, on May 29, 2025, the Allahabad High Court rejected Gandhi’s petition challenging the defamation case and a February 2025 summoning order issued by a special MP-MLA court in Lucknow.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the High Court held that freedom of speech and expression does not extend to defamatory statements targeting the Indian Army. The court observed that Gandhi’s comments were prima facie capable of demoralizing the armed forces and hurting the sentiments of Army personnel and their families.
Challenging this reasoning, Gandhi approached the Supreme Court, seeking quashing of the proceedings on the grounds that they were politically motivated and aimed at stifling dissent.
