The Supreme Court on Monday, August 4, 2025, strongly criticized Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his remarks concerning the Indian Army, made during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022. The court was hearing Gandhi's plea against an Allahabad High Court order that declined to quash a summons issued to him in a defamation case. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih presided over the hearing, expressing their disapproval of Gandhi's statements regarding the army and Chinese occupation of Indian territory.
The core of the issue revolves around comments Rahul Gandhi made during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, where he claimed that Chinese soldiers were "beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh" and that China had occupied 2,000 square kilometers of Indian land. These remarks, made in the context of a border clash with China in December 2022, were deemed "defamatory and derogatory" by the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). Srivastava argued that Gandhi's statements demoralized the armed forces and were damaging to national unity.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court justices questioned the basis of Gandhi's claims. "How do you get to know that 2,000 sq km land was occupied by Chinese? What is the credible material?" the bench asked. Justice Datta further inquired, "Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without anything?". The court emphasized that while Gandhi, as a Leader of Opposition, has the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, his remarks were inappropriate given the sensitive nature of the border conflict. The bench stated, "If you are a true Indian, you would not say all this". They suggested that Gandhi should raise such concerns in Parliament rather than on social media.
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Rahul Gandhi, argued that opposition leaders have a duty to raise concerns about issues of national importance. He contended that if Gandhi could not voice these concerns, he could not effectively function as the Leader of Opposition. Singhvi also stated that Gandhi's remarks could not be grounds for criminal defamation filed by a third party. "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 added.
Despite the strong rebuke, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Rahul Gandhi by staying further proceedings in the defamation case and issuing notice to the complainant and the Uttar Pradesh government. The matter is scheduled for further consideration after three weeks.
The BJP has seized upon the Supreme Court's criticism, with party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia raising "serious questions about Rahul Gandhi's Indianness and national responsibility". Bhatia accused Gandhi of "undermining the Constitution" and "demoralizing the armed forces" through his statements. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju reiterated his stance that "China has not taken even an inch of land in Arunachal Pradesh".
The case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of speech and national security, particularly in the context of political discourse. While the Supreme Court acknowledged Gandhi's right to express his views, it also emphasized the importance of responsible and informed commentary, especially from a leader holding a prominent position in the opposition.
