‘If You're True Indian...’: Supreme Court Bashes Rahul Gandhi For Insulting Indian Army During 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, August 4, stayed proceedings in the criminal defamation case filed against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over his remarks concerning the Indian Army in connection with the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China.

Despite granting interim relief, the bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih strongly disapproved of Gandhi's comments. During the hearing, Justice Datta questioned the appropriateness of Gandhi's statements made outside Parliament, asking, “Whatever you have to say, why don't you say it in Parliament? Why do you have to say this in social media posts?” 

Appearing for Gandhi, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that if opposition leaders are not allowed to raise such issues, it sets a troubling precedent. “If he can’t say these things which are published in the Press, he can’t be a Leader of Opposition,” Singhvi stated.

Justice Datta further pressed Singhvi, asking, “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.” 

Responding, Singhvi remarked, “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, however, questioned whether it was unusual to have casualties on both sides during a border conflict.

Singhvi clarified that Gandhi’s comments were aimed at demanding proper disclosure and raising concerns about the suppression of information, adding that there are attempts to harass him simply for asking questions. Justice Datta maintained that there are proper forums to raise such matters. 

Singhvi also argued that under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), it is mandatory to hear the accused before taking cognisance of a criminal complaint, a procedure that was not followed in this case. However, Justice Datta noted that this argument was not raised before the High Court. Singhvi admitted this lapse, stating that the High Court challenge had primarily focused on questioning the locus of the complainant.

He also questioned the Allahabad High Court’s reasoning that the complainant, though not a “person aggrieved”, was a “person defamed”.

The Supreme Court issued notice on Gandhi’s Special Leave Petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s May 29 judgment, which had refused to quash the proceedings. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appeared for the complainant on caveat.

The defamation case was filed by Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), and is currently pending before an MP/MLA court in Lucknow. It pertains to remarks made by Gandhi on December 16, 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, allegedly referencing a clash between Indian and Chinese soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022.

Srivastava’s complaint accuses Gandhi of repeatedly stating in a derogatory manner that the Chinese army is “thrashing” Indian soldiers and that the Indian press is not raising questions on the issue. The Lucknow court had observed that Gandhi’s comments appeared to demoralise the Indian Army and affect soldiers and their families.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court, while rejecting Gandhi’s plea, held that freedom of speech does not extend to making defamatory statements about the Indian Army.