Allahabad High Court told Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi that “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.”
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging a summons issued by a Lucknow court in a defamation case concerning his alleged derogatory remarks against the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma had directed Gandhi to appear for hearing on March 24 in the defamation case filed against him. Challenging this, Rahul had moved the High Court.
The complaint was filed by retired Border Roads Organisation Director Uday Shankar Srivastava, whose rank is equivalent to an Army Colonel.
He claimed Rahul Gandhi’s statements on 16 December 2022, alleging that “Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh,” were derogatory and defamatory towards the Indian military forces.
Rejecting Rahul Gandhi’s argument that the complainant was not an Army officer and that he had not defamed him personally, the Allahabad High Court noted that under Section 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a person other than the direct victim can be considered an “aggrieved person” if affected by the offence.
Since Srivastava expressed deep respect for the Army and was personally hurt by the remarks, he qualified to file the complaint.
The Allahabad High Court held:
“The trial Court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant 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 himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out.” as reported by Bar and Bench.
The court further clarified that at this preliminary stage, it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the competing claims, as that responsibility lies with the trial court. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.