Rahul Gandhi
Disrespectful Comment Against Indian Army Is An Insult Of Nation: Allahabad High Court While Rejecting Rahul Gandhi’s Plea In Defamation Case
|The Allahabad High Court said that the Trial Court rightly arrived at the decision to summon Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the Application of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case alleging derogatory remarks by him against the Indian Army.
Rahul Gandhi challenged the validity of an Order before the Lucknow Bench which was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning him to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “The complainant has immense respect towards the Indian Army and the disrespectful comment against the Indian Army made with the object of demoralizing the Indian Army and portraying its achievements in a demeaning manner, amount to an insult of the Indian Army as well of as of the entire nation, which has hurt the complainant. I am of the view that the aforesaid averments made in the complaint indicate that the applicant is a person aggrieved by the offence and he can file a complaint as per the provision contained in Section 199 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the first objection of the learned Counsel for the applicant is turned down.”
The Bench was of the view that the Trial Court rightly arrived at the decision to summon Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC 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.
Advocates Pranshu Agrawal, Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, and Mohammed Samar Ansari appeared for the Applicant while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Vinod Kumar Shahi, Government Advocate (GA) V.K. Singh, AGA-I Anurag Verma, and State Counsel Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore appeared for the Opposite Parties.
Factual Background
The Opposite Party had filed a Complaint against the Applicant-Rahul Gandhi stating that the Complainant is a senior citizen who has retired from the post of Director in Border Roads Organization, which position is equivalent to the post of Colonel in Indian Army. He stated that he has immense respect towards the courage and valor of the Indian Army and any disrespectful comment against the Indian Army made with the object of demoralizing the same and portraying its achievements in a demeaning manner, amount to an insult of the Indian Army as well as of the entire nation, which hurts the Complainant. It was alleged that the Applicant who has held the office of a Member of the Indian Parliament several times, stated on December 16, 2022 during his ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ in presence of media persons and a large gathering of public regarding a face-off that took place between the Indian Army and the Chinese Army at the border of India in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022 that “People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometers of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn’t ask a question to them about this. Isn’t it true? The nation is watching all this. Don’t pretend that people don’t know.”
A news item was published in the above regard on a news portal opindia.com under the heading “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian Army soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh’: Rahul Gandhi on Tawang clash” wherein it was published that on December 16, 2022, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that Chinese troops are thrashing Indian army soldiers along the line of actual control (LAC). The Complainant stated that such a statement of the Applicant is false and baseless and it was given with an evil intention of demoralizing the Indian Army and to damage the faith of the Indian population on the Indian Army, whereas the truth is that in the scuffle that took place in Yangsi region Arunachal Pradesh, the Indian Army successfully restrained the Chinese Army from entering the territory protected by it and badly chased them away.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The phrase “some person aggrieved by the offence” occurring in Section 199 (1) Cr.P.C. obviously refers to some person other than the person than against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed. The Section itself contemplates filing of complaints by some person aggrieved by the offence, although the offence has not been committed against him. The complainant has stated that the he is a senior citizen, who has retired from the post of Director in Border Roads Organization, which position is equivalent to the post of Colonel in Indian Army.”
The Court turned down the preliminary objection against maintainability of the Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and held the same to be maintainable.
“At this stage, while examining the validity of the summoning order, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the rival claims and that exercise would have to be taken by the trial Court after the parties have availed the opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claim/defence”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the impugned summoning order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title- Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. And Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:33090)