Free speech doesn't extend to making remarks against Indian Army: Allahabad High Court to Rahul Gandhi

The Allahabad High Court recently held that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army [Rahul Gandhi v. State of UP]..The High Court made the observation while rejecting a plea 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.Single-judge Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that,"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.".Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma had directed Gandhi to appear for hearing on March 24 in the defamation case filed against him. Challenging this, Rahul had moved the High Court.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 had said 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..While dismissing Gandhi's plea against the Magistrate's order, the High Court observed that under Section 199(1) of the CrPC, an individual who is not the direct victim of an offence can still be regarded as an "aggrieved person" if the offence has caused them harm or adversely affected them.The Court observed that the complainant in the case, a retired Director of the Border Roads Organisation, holding a rank equivalent to that of a Colonel, had filed the complaint over allegedly derogatory remarks made against the Indian Army. Noting that the complainant had expressed deep respect for the Army and was personally hurt by the comments, the Court held that he qualified as an aggrieved person under Section 199 of the CrPC and was therefore entitled to file the complaint.."...the trial Court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out. The impugned summoning order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers," the Court noted..In light of the same, the Court observed that at this preliminary stage while assessing the validity of the summoning order, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the competing claims, as that responsibility lies with the trial court. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea..Advocates Mohd Yasir Abbasi, Mohammed Samar Ansari and Pranshu Agrawal appeared for Rahul Gandhi.Additional Advocate General V K Singh, Government Advocate Anurag Verma and advocate Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore appeared for the State..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 top court 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..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.