Supreme Court Directs Complainant to File Early Hearing Plea in Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case
In a significant development on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India addressed a request for an expedited hearing in the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court urged the complainant, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation, to file an application for an early hearing if he sought urgency in the proceedings.
The matter was presided over by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The bench stressed the principle of equality before the law, with CJI Kant stating, “Everyone is equal before us.” The complainant was advised to adhere to the procedural norms by filing a formal application.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the complainant, argued that Rahul Gandhi should not be considered a Very Very Important Person (VVIP) in this context. He expressed concerns over the delayed listing of Gandhi’s appeal, which challenges the cognizance taken by a magistrate, stating, “He is not a VVIP. The matter was listed five months ago and was not taken up. This does not augur well for the institution as well.”
The defamation case against Gandhi arose from his remarks alleging that “Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh,” which was intended as a critique of the government’s handling of Chinese actions at the Line of Actual Control. Previously, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih had stayed the proceedings against Gandhi, questioning why he was making such statements on social media rather than raising them in Parliament. The bench also sought to determine if his statements were based on credible evidence.
Gandhi’s appeal was prompted by an Allahabad High Court decision that upheld the summons issued by a Lucknow court. 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 contended that Gandhi’s statements, made on December 16, 2022, regarding a clash between Indian and Chinese forces on December 9, 2022, were derogatory and defamed the Indian Army.
More Read
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma had initially directed Gandhi to appear for a hearing on March 24 in connection with the defamation case. Challenging this, Gandhi moved the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his plea. The High Court ruled that under Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an individual need not be the direct victim of an offence to be considered an “aggrieved person” if the offence has caused them harm or adversely affected them. The court recognized the complainant’s deep respect for the Army and acknowledged that he was personally hurt by Gandhi’s comments, thus qualifying as an aggrieved person.
Subsequently, Gandhi approached the Supreme Court seeking relief. Notably, the Court had previously granted him interim protection from coercive actions.
