Why ask on social media instead of Parliament? Supreme Court while staying case against Rahul Gandhi for remarks about Army

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the criminal defamation case pending before a Lucknow court against Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi in connection with his remarks about the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.

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.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih cautioned Gandhi as to why he was making statements on social media instead of raising such issues in the parliament.

The Court also asked whether his statements were based on any credible material.

"Why in social media post and not in parliament? How do you get to know when 2000 sq km was acquired by China? What is the credible material? A true Indian will not say this. When there is a conflict across border, can you say all this. Why can't you ask the question in parliament? Just because you have 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech] you cannot say anything," the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the remarks by Gandhi cannot be a ground for a third party to file defamation case.

"But you cannot harass somebody like this with defamation charges. High Court says he (complainant) was not a person aggrieved but defamed. High Court reasoning was novel was not correct," Singhvi said.

The Court then proceeded to stay the proceedings while issuing notice to the State.

The matter will be heard again after three weeks.

The Court was hearing an appeal by Gandhi against against an Allahabad High Court order which had upheld the summons issued by a Lucknow court to Gandhi in connection with the case.

The case stemmed from a complaint 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.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma then directed Gandhi to appear for hearing on March 24 in the defamation case. Challenging this, Gandhi had moved the Allahabad High Court.

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 High Court also said that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army