No Free Pass for Defamatory Speech | Allahabad High Court Upholds Summons Against Rahul Gandhi in Army Defamation Case | Prima Facie Offence Made Out
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, held that the summoning order issued by the trial court against the applicant to face trial under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was valid and legally sustainable. The Court directed that the proceedings initiated based on a complaint alleging defamation of the Indian Army would continue and declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order or the complaint proceedings.
The present case arose from a complaint filed by a retired Director of the Border Roads Organization, equated in status to a Colonel in the Indian Army. The complainant, described as a senior citizen with deep reverence for the military, alleged that the applicant had made public statements that were defamatory to the Indian Army.
The controversy stems from the applicant’s remarks during a public event on December 16, 2022, concerning a clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. The complainant quoted the applicant saying, "Chinese troops are thrashing Indian Army soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh", among other similar assertions, which he claimed were made to the press and broadly disseminated across news platforms.
The complainant contended that these remarks were false, baseless, and calculated to demoralize the Indian Army, and constituted a conspiracy to adversely affect national unity. Witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. supported the claim, attesting to the psychological impact of the statement on themselves and others.
The trial court, after considering the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., found a prima facie case and issued summons to the applicant under Section 500 IPC. It specifically noted that the comments were not part of any official duty, thereby excluding the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Challenging the summoning order dated 11.02.2025, the applicant moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that the complainant lacked locus standi under Section 199 Cr.P.C., as no defamatory statement was directed at him personally. He cited precedents to argue that only a directly aggrieved person may maintain such a complaint.
The applicant further argued that the complaint was built solely on media reports and lacked substantive legal evidence. He also contended that his remarks were protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and should not be interpreted as defamatory in the absence of clear malicious intent.
The State, on the other hand, asserted that the complainant, having served in an institution linked to the Indian Army, qualifies as an aggrieved person under Section 199 Cr.P.C., and the matter warranted trial-level scrutiny rather than premature quashing.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi recorded the following observations: “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 against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
Referring to the complainant’s military background and the emotional distress described in the complaint, the Court stated: “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.”
Regarding the allegation that the summoning order was mechanical and uninformed, the Court recorded: “The impugned summoning order shows that the trial Court has considered the averments made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after a judicious application of mind, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the statement of the applicant has caused defamation of the Indian Army.”
In addressing the free speech argument, the Court stated: “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.”
The Court also clarified that the precedents cited by the applicant, including those invoking poetic expression or criticism of constitutional changes, were not applicable as they arose in materially distinct factual and legal contexts.
Concerning the reliance on press coverage as evidence, the Court observed: “In the present case, the allegedly offending statement was made by the applicant while addressing media correspondents… Therefore, even as per the law laid down in Naval Kishor Sharma, the facts of the case do not make out a case for quashing.”
On the maintainability of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., despite the availability of a remedy under Section 397, the Court held: “Although the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise its discretion of invoking its inherent powers when the petitioner has got a statutory remedy available under Section 397 Cr.P.C.”
The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., upholding the summoning order issued by the trial court. It concluded that the trial Court had rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying itself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant was made out.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the impugned summoning order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the trial Court did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, and held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merits and was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Mohammed Samar Ansari, Pranshu Agrawal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Shri Vinod Kumar Shahi, Additional Advocate General; Dr. V.K. Singh, Government Advocate; Anurag Verma, AGA-I; Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, State Counsel
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:33090
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. - 4623 of 2025
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
[Read/Download order]
