Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by Rahul Gandhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the validity of the Trial Court’s order summoning him to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for defaming Indian Army with his alleged remarks about thrashing of soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh, a Single Judge Bench of Subhash Vidyarthi J., dismissed the application on lack of merits. The Court viewed that the Trial Court had correctly decided to summon Rahul Gandhi to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after satisfying that a prima facie case existed against him. The Court further held that there was no illegality or procedural infirmity in the summoning order that would warrant the exercise of its inherent powers.
Background
The complainant had retired from the post of Director of the Border Roads Organization, a position equivalent to that of a Colonel in the Indian Army and held immense respect for the Indian Army. During the ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra,’ Rahul Gandhi, had made certain remarks regarding a face-off between the Indian Army and the Chinese Army. According to the complainant, some of the alleged defamatory statements suggested that the Indian Army was being “trashed and killed” in Arunachal Pradesh. These remarks, he contended, were false, baseless, and had the effect of demoralizing the Indian Army while undermining the faith of the Indian public in the institution. The statements were widely reported in the media and deeply hurt the sentiments of the complainant, who revered the Indian Army. The Trial Court, upon considering the matter, had observed that, prima facie, the statements made by Rahul appeared to demoralize members of the Indian Army, their associates, and their families. Given that the complainant had served in a position equivalent to that of a Colonel and the remarks were directed at the Army, the Court found that a prima facie case under Section 500 IPC was made out against Rahul.
Analysis and Decision
Concerning the issue of maintainability, the Court noted that the phrase “some person aggrieved by the offence” occurring in Section 199 (1) CrPC 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 Court viewed that averments made by the complainant of being hurt by the alleged remarks which demoralized the Indian Army and portrayed its achievements in a demeaning manner indicated that he was an aggrieved person under Section 199 CrPC and hence possessed the requisite locus standi.
On the mechanical manner of initiating a defamation case, the Court observed, upon perusal of the Trial Court’s summoning order, that the Trial Court had not acted mechanically. Instead, it had examined the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and through a judicial application of mind, concluded that the alleged remarks constituted a case of defamation against Rahul. Accordingly, the Trial Court had summoned him after forming an independent opinion based on the material placed before it.
On the contention of freedom of speech and expression, the Court said, “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.”
Concerning the issue of publication of the alleged remarks, the Court observed that the allegedly defamatory remarks were made by Rahul in response to a question by some media person. This showed his clear intention of making his statements published in newspaper and magazines.
The Court rejected all other submissions made on behalf of Rahul Gandhi and, while dismissing the present application, held that the Trial Court had rightly arrived at the decision to summon Rahul to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying itself that a prima facie case for trial was made out.
[Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P., Application u/s 482 no. 4623 of 2025, decided on 29-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Mohammed Samar Ansari, and Pranshu Agrawal, Advocates
For the respondent: G.A.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
