Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Permit Defamation of Indian Army: Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea in Defamation Case
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant relief to Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case linked to his alleged comments about the Indian Army.
The case stems from remarks he is said to have made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022.
Delivering its verdict, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi emphasized that while Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it involves defamatory statements targeting individuals or institutions such as the Indian Army.
“Freedom of speech does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army,” the court observed, as reported by Live Law.
Background of the Case
The defamation complaint was filed by Uday Shankar Shrivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO)—an entity under the Ministry of Defence.
Shrivastava alleged that Rahul Gandhi’s comments on December 16, 2022, in the wake of a military clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, were derogatory and offensive to the dignity of the Indian armed forces.
According to the complaint, Gandhi had made public statements suggesting that the Chinese army was “thrashing” Indian soldiers, and accused the Indian media of failing to question the government on this issue.
Shrivastava contended that such remarks amounted to defaming the Army and hurt the sentiments of those who deeply respect the armed forces.
Rahul Gandhi’s Arguments Rejected
Rahul Gandhi had approached the High Court to challenge the summons issued to him by a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow in February 2024.
In his petition, Gandhi argued that Shrivastava, being a retired officer and not a serving member of the Army, did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under Section 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which governs defamation proceedings.
However, the High Court dismissed this argument. The bench held that even a person who is not directly targeted by defamatory remarks can be considered an aggrieved party if the defamatory content affects a collective institution they are associated with — in this case, the Indian Army.
The court found that Shrivastava, a retired officer equivalent in rank to a Colonel, had demonstrated his close association with and respect for the Army and was therefore justified in taking legal action based on his sense of grievance.
Supreme Court’s Prior Caution
It is worth noting that this is not the first time Rahul Gandhi has faced legal scrutiny over controversial remarks. In a previous, unrelated case, the Supreme Court of India had stayed legal proceedings against him, but also cautioned him against making any further “irresponsible statements” in the public domain.
The latest development underscores how remarks perceived as undermining the morale or dignity of the armed forces can have legal consequences, even for prominent public figures.
