Gurugram court sentences IAF veteran to 4 months in jail for calling former Deputy Army Chief ‘coward’

Any statement questioning the courage of a serving or retired Army officer has the potential to cause serious damage to his reputation and dignity, the Court said.

Army (picture for representative purpose)

Published on:

21 Jul 2026, 7:14 am

3 min read

Listen to this article

A court in Gurugram recently sentenced retired Indian Air Force Group Captain Vinod K Gandhi to four months' imprisonment in a defamation case for calling retired Lt. Gen. Raj Kadyan a "coward" in connection with the agitation for One Rank One Pension of defence personnel at Jantar Mantar.

Judicial Magistrate Hari Kishan said branding a decorated Army Officer as a “coward”, particularly in communications circulated among veterans and defence personnel, is per se defamatory and reasonably capable of lowering his moral, character and professional standing in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

It attracts the offence punishable under Section 500 (defamation) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

"The complainant had served the Indian Army for more than four decades and attained the rank of Lieutenant General. The allegation of cowardice levelled against such an officer is therefore inherently humiliating and carries far greater defamatory impact than the same expression used in ordinary social discourse. The imputation strikes at the very honour and credibility earned by the complainant throughout his distinguished military career," the Court ruled on July 17.

However, after convicting Gandhi, the Court granted him interim bail till August 17 to enable him to file an appeal against the conviction.

"The convict is a senior citizen and has served the nation as an officer (Group Captain) in the Indian Air Force. His past service record and contribution towards society, particularly welfare of Ex-Servicemen, deserve due consideration," it said, while taking a lenient view in sentencing.

However, the Court also said that Gandhi did not deserve the benefit of probation.

Kadyan, who had served as the Deputy Chief of the Army Staff (Training and Coordination) in Army, had moved the court in 2016 accusing Gandhi of circulating various emails amongst members of Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) and other veterans groups containing false, reckless, derogatory and defamatory imputations against him.

The alleged defamation was committed after Kadyan exposed cheating and misappropriation of organizational funds in the IESM, the Court was told. Gandhi was alleged to have said that Kadyan is coward and he does not deserve to be addressed with his rank of Lt General.

The expression “coward” carries far graver and more damaging connotations when used against a member of the Armed Forces than when used against an ordinary individual.

Gurugram court

In its ruling, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the emails were indeed written and transmitted by the accused. The Court also said that emails were communicated to third persons and thereby constituted “publication” within the meaning of Section 499 IPC.

With regard to the remarks made against Kadyan, the Court said imputations of “coward” are certainly defamatory in nature.

"Alleging that a senior military officer, who rendered more than four decades of service and attained the rank of Lieutenant General, had acted as a “coward” during military operations is undoubtedly an allegation capable of seriously lowering his reputation, dignity and standing in the eyes of fellow officers, veterans and society at large more particularly when no such remark is made in annual confidential report /service record of the complainant," the Court added.

Such imputation directly attacks the courage, integrity, professional competence and honour of the complainant, which are attributes of the highest significance in military service, the judge further said.

The Court opined that advisory note recorded in the complainant's annual confidential report (ACR) to the effect that the officer ought to be “bold and aggressive in operations” cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed to mean that the officer was a coward.

"The expression “coward” carries far graver and more damaging connotations when used against a member of the Armed Forces than when used against an ordinary individual," the Court said.