'No Freedom To Make Statements Defamatory To Indian Army': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Rahul Gandhi In Defamation Case

Denying relief to LoP Rahul Gandhi in a Defamation case over his alleged remark on the Indian Army, the Allahabad High Court last week observed that freedom of speech and expression does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to the Indian Army. A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus rejected Gandhi's plea, who had moved the HC challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP MLA court in Lucknow. “No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,” the single judge remarked. The defamation complaint, filed by former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director Uday Shankar Srivastava and presently pending in a court in Lucknow, states that the alleged derogatory remarks by Gandhi were made on December 16, 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra. The complaint adds that Gandhi's objectionable comments, pertaining to a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies on December 9, 2022, had defamed the Indian Army. It has been specifically alleged that Gandhi repetitively stated in a very derogatory manner that the Chinese army is 'thrashing' our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh, and that the Indian Press will not ask any question in this regard. Challenging the order of the Lucknow Court, wherein it was prima facie observed that Gandhi's statement appeared to have resulted in demoralizing the Indian Army and persons attached to it and their family members, Gandhi had moved the HC. It was Gandhi's contention in the HC that the complainant is not an Officer of the Indian Army and that he had not given any statement defaming the complainant. The Court, however, rejected this contention as it noted that under Section 199(1) Cr.P.C., a person other than the direct victim of an offence can also be considered an "aggrieved person" if they are impacted by the offence. The bench noted that in this case, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation, which is equivalent in rank to a Colonel, had filed a complaint over allegedly derogatory comments aimed at the Indian Army, who claimed to have deep respect for the Army and was hurt over the alleged remark. Thus, the Court opined that he was a person 'aggrieved' by the offence and he could file a complaint as per the provision contained in Section 199 CrPC. Importantly, the Court also opined that the trial Court had rightly decided to summon Gandhi to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC, as it had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the court, perusing the alleged statement, noted that Gandhi had uttered the words impugned while talking to the media correspondents and thus, he had a clear intention and message to the persons present that his statement be published in newspapers and magazines. The Court also took note of the submission made by the Additional Advocate General (AAG), who referred to a LiveLaw report detailing the oral proceedings before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2025, concerning Rahul Gandhi's alleged remarks about VD Savarkar. For context, the report highlighted the Supreme Court's strong oral disapproval of Gandhi's comments, during which the Court orally cautioned him against making similar statements in the future. In the said case, although the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings against Gandhi, it explicitly restrained him from making any further irresponsible remarks. Additionally, the senior counsel appearing for Gandhi had also given an oral undertaking that the applicant would refrain from making such statements going forward. Read more about the case here : 'Is This How You Treat Freedom Fighters?' : Supreme Court Slams Rahul Gandhi For Comments Against Savarkar, Stays Defamation Case Against this backdrop, noting that at this stage, while examining the validity of the summoning order, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the rival claims and that exercise would have to be taken by the trial Court, the Court dismissed his petition. Gandhi was represented by Advocates Pranshu Agrawal, Mohd Yasir Abbasi and Mohammed Samar Ansari.Case title - Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 200Click Here To Read/Download Order

'No Freedom To Make Statements Defamatory To Indian Army': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Rahul Gandhi In Defamation Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags