The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi challenging a summons issued by a Lucknow court in connection with alleged defamatory remarks he made against the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the High Court rejected Gandhi’s plea on merits, allowing the proceedings before the lower court to continue.
The case stems from a December 16, 2022 remark by Gandhi, where he reportedly said that “Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh,” during a political address. The statement, made in the context of the December 9, 2022 clash between Indian and Chinese forces, was interpreted by the complainant as derogatory towards the Indian military.
The defamation complaint was filed by advocate Vivek Tiwari on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation holding a rank equivalent to Army Colonel. Tiwari argued that Gandhi’s comments tarnished the reputation and morale of the armed forces.
On this basis, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma had summoned Gandhi to appear before the court on March 24.
Multiple Legal Battles
This is one among several legal challenges faced by Gandhi across the country. In January 2024, the Supreme Court stayed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him for allegedly calling Union Home Minister Amit Shah a “murder accused” during a 2018 speech. That case was filed by BJP leader Navin Jha.
Further, Gandhi recently drew judicial scrutiny over his remarks about Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan cautioned Gandhi, calling his comments irresponsible, and warned of possible suo motu action if similar statements are made in the future. However, the Bench did stay a summons issued by a Magistrate in that related defamation case.
As legal proceedings continue on various fronts, Gandhi’s political statements continue to spark debate and draw litigation across multiple jurisdictions.
