In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, refusing to quash a defamation case initiated against him over controversial remarks allegedly made about the Indian Army.
The Court, led by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, firmly held that while Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
“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,”
— Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court
Read Also:-
The case arose from a complaint filed by Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), whose rank is equivalent to a Colonel in the Indian Army. The complaint concerned a statement made by Rahul Gandhi on December 16, 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra. Gandhi had reportedly claimed that the Chinese Army was “thrashing” Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh and criticized the Indian press for not questioning the government on the matter.
The complainant alleged that these comments were not only false but aimed at demoralizing the Indian Army and damaging public trust in the institution. The remarks were widely published in the media, and according to Srivastava, caused immense mental agony to him and other ex-servicemen.
Read Also:- Wife's Right to Stay in Matrimonial Home Remains Even After Husband’s Death: Kerala High Court
Rahul Gandhi challenged the summoning order dated February 11, 2025, issued by a Lucknow MP/MLA court, arguing that Srivastava was not directly defamed and hence had no legal standing (locus standi) to file the case.
The High Court, however, rejected this argument, observing that under Section 199(1) Cr.P.C., a person other than the directly injured party can be an “aggrieved person” if they are personally affected by the alleged defamation.
“The complainant, a retired senior officer, had immense respect for the Indian Army. The derogatory statement against the Army was sufficient to hurt him and thus, he qualifies as an aggrieved person under Section 199 Cr.P.C.,”
— Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Allows Juveniles in Shahabas Murder Case to Take School Admission from Observation Home
The Court also emphasized that the trial court had applied its mind and followed due process before issuing the summoning order under Section 500 IPC for criminal defamation.
Gandhi’s counsel had also cited Supreme Court rulings on free speech, including Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., but the High Court clarified that these judgments did not apply to cases involving defamatory statements against the Indian Army.
Importantly, the Court noted that Gandhi’s statement was made in a media interaction, not as part of his official duties, and was clearly intended to be published and circulated, fulfilling a key criterion for defamation.
Read Also:- Personal Loans or EMIs Don’t Override Duty to Maintain Wife and Child: Delhi High Court
The Court also referenced a previous Supreme Court oral observation made in April 2025 regarding Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on VD Savarkar. The apex court had warned Gandhi against making “irresponsible statements” and accepted an oral undertaking from his counsel that he would refrain from doing so in the future.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the summoning order was legal and justified, and therefore, dismissed Gandhi’s plea under Section 482 CrPC.
Read Also:- Madras High Court: Same-Sex Couples Can Form a Family Even Without Legal Marriage
Rahul Gandhi was represented by Advocates Pranshu Agrawal, Mohd Yasir Abbasi, and Mohammed Samar Ansari.
“The trial court has rightly summoned the applicant after considering all relevant facts. The order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference.”
— Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another
