Surinder Sharma
The Supreme Court on Monday sharply questioned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his remarks alleging that China had occupied 2,000 square kilometers of Indian territory. The court criticized Gandhi for making such claims without presenting credible evidence and stated that a “true Indian” would not make such statements.
“What Is Your Reliable Source?”
A bench of the apex court asked, “How do you know that China has taken over 2,000 sq km of Indian land? What is your concrete source of information? If you were a true Indian, you would not say such things.”
The court further added, “Can such statements be made while there is tension at the border? Why can’t you raise these concerns in Parliament instead of speaking on social media? As the leader of the opposition, speak in the House, not on public platforms.”
Relief Granted, But Court Issues Notices
While making these observations, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in a defamation case filed against Rahul Gandhi in a Lucknow MP/MLA court related to his comments on the Indian Army. Notices have been issued to the complainant, former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director Uday Shankar Srivastava, and the Uttar Pradesh government.
The case stems from a speech made by Gandhi on December 16, 2022, during the Bharat Jodo Yatra. In his statement, he said, “People will ask about the Bharat Jodo Yatra, but China has captured 2,000 square kilometers of Indian land, 20 Indian soldiers were martyred, and our troops were beaten up in Arunachal Pradesh.”
Background of the Legal Case
Srivastava had filed a defamation suit in the Lucknow MP/MLA court, claiming the remarks were defamatory and damaging to the reputation of the Indian Army.
Earlier this year, on May 29, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s petition challenging the defamation complaint and issued summons. Gandhi had then approached the Supreme Court, stating that the complaint was filed with malice and political intent.
The case will now proceed in the Supreme Court, which will further examine the maintainability of the defamation proceedings.
