04 Aug ‘True Indian wouldn’t say so’: Supreme Court rebukes Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Army
Targeting the government over Chinese action at the line of actual control, Gandhi had reportedly said that “Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh”.
Before granting him interim relief, a division bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, strongly disapproved of Gandhi’s remarks.
“Why don’t you say this in Parliament? Why do you have to say this on social media posts? How do you get to know when 2,000 sq km was acquired by China? Were you there? Do you have any credible evidence?” Justice Datta verbally remarked.
Further cornering Gandhi for his remarks, Justice Datta orally observed: “If you were a true Indian you would not have said this. When there is a cross-border conflict, can you say all this? Why can’t you ask these questions in Parliament? …Being a responsible leader of the Opposition, you cannot say this…just because you have 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech] you cannot say anything”.
Appearing on behalf of Gandhi, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that Gandhi’s remarks cannot be a ground for a third party to file a defamation suit. ”But you cannot harass somebody like this with defamation charges. The high court says he (complainant) was not a person aggrieved but defamed. The high court’s reasoning was not correct,” Singhvi argued.Issuing a notice on Gandhi’s plea, the bench stayed proceedings pending before a Lucknow magistrate. The matter will come up for resumed hearing after three weeks. The development took place during the resumed hearing of an appeal filed by Gandhi against an Allahabad High Court ruling which had upheld the summons issued by a Lucknow court to Gandhi in connection with the case.
The case originated from a complaint filed by lawyer Vivek Tiwari on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation with a rank equivalent to an Army Colonel.
Tiwari alleged that Gandhi’s remarks on December 16, 2022, regarding the December 9, 2022 clash between the Indian and Chinese armies were derogatory and defamatory towards the Indian military forces.
A Lucknow magistrate had directed Gandhi to appear on March 24. Aggrieved, Gandhi had petitioned the Allahabad High Court. While dismissing Gandhi’s plea against the magistrate’s order, the Allahabad High Court had, on June 4, observed that under Section 199(1) of the CrPC, an individual who is not the direct victim of an offence can still be regarded as an “aggrieved person” if the offence has caused them harm or adversely affected them.