The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a petition filed by Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi against a summoning order issued by a Lucknow court in connection with his alleged defamatory remarks against the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed the plea on merits.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma had directed Gandhi to appear for hearing on March 24 in the defamation case filed against him.
The complaint was 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 alleged that Gandhi’s remarks on December 16, 2022 regarding the December 9, 2022 clash between the Indian and Chinese armies were derogatory and defamatory towards the Indian military forces.
Gandhi's remark that "Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh" — a criticism directed at the government over Chinese actions at the Line of Actual Control.
There have been a slew of petitions filed against Gandhi by political rivals and others in various courts across the country.
In January this year, the Supreme Court had stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Gandhi booked for calling Union Home Minister and former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President Amit Shah a murder accused.
The case arose after BJP leader Navin Jha filed a complaint against Gandhi, alleging that Gandhi delivered a speech on March 18, 2018 criticising the BJP and accusing Shah of being involved in murder.
Recently, the Supreme Court had pulled up Gandhi for saying that Hindutva idealogue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was a collaborator with the British who received pension from the British.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said that Gandhi's statements against the freedom fighter were irresponsible and that the Court will initiate suo motu action if he makes similar statements.
Nevertheless, the Bench had stayed the summons issued to him by a Magistrate court for his remarks in a criminal case initiated against him by a lawyer for the controversial statements.