Remarks Against Indian Army: Supreme Court Extends Stay On Trial Court Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi

The Supreme Court has extended its Interim Order staying proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi till April 22, 2026, in a case related to his alleged derogatory remarks against the Indian Army during his 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.

The Court was hearing Rahul's plea challenging a May 29 Order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed his plea challenging the Trial Court's Summoning Order in the case.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma admitted the Appeal filed by Rahul, and said that it will hear the matter in detail.

While hearing Rahul's plea on August 4 this year, the Apex Court had stayed till the next date of hearing further proceedings in the case pending before a Court in Lucknow.

"How do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory has been occupied by Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material?", the Bench had earlier asked Rahul about his alleged remarks. "Why do you make these statements without having any material? If you are a true Indian, you won't say such a thing", it added.

The Court had then issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Complainant in the case seeking their responses on Rahul's plea.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Rahul, had told the Supreme Court that it would be an unfortunate situation if the Leader of Opposition cannot raise issues. He referred to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and said that prior hearing of the accused was mandatory before the Court took cognizance of a criminal complaint, which was not done in the present case.

In his plea filed in a Court, Complainant namely Udai Shanker Srivastava alleged that Rahul Gandhi made several derogatory remarks against the Indian Army in context of the clashes with Chinese soldiers during his December 2022 yatra. The Trial Court summoned Rahul as an accused for facing trial for the alleged offence of defamation. His Advocate Pranshu Agarwal argued that the allegations appeared to be fabricated, just by reading the complaint.

It was also argued that Gandhi is not a resident of Lucknow and hence, the Trial Court should have investigated the veracity of the allegations before summoning him on this complaint, and he should have been summoned only if the allegations were prima facie found to be fit for trial.

With PTI Inputs