The Supreme Court on Thursday extended till April 22 the interim protection granted to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi against criminal defamation proceedings over his alleged derogatory remarks concerning the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.
The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma directed that the stay on further proceedings before the trial court should continue till April 22, when the matter would be taken up for final adjudication.
The Apex Court further clarified that no coercive measures shall be initiated against the Gandhi till April 2026.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by one Uday Shanker Srivastava under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (now paralleled in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The complainant alleged that the Congress leader’s statements over the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes between India and China, made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, constituted criminal defamation of the Indian Army and its personnel.
The Trial Court’s cognizance had earlier been stayed by the Supreme Court on 4 August 2025, a protection which now remains operative. During earlier hearings, the Bench—then comprising Justice Dipankar Datta—had sharply questioned the evidentiary basis of Gandhi’s statement that “2,000 sq km of Indian territory” had purportedly been occupied by China.
Observing that such assertions, absent substantiation, were “unbecoming of a responsible public leader,” the Court had sought an explanation regarding the factual foundation of the allegation.
These judicial remarks sparked criticism from several members of the Opposition INDIA bloc, who issued a joint statement contending that the observations were “extraordinary,” “unwarranted,” and inimical to the constitutional right of political leaders to question the executive on matters of national security and public interest.
Earlier, on March 29, 2025, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s challenge to the Magistrate’s summoning order, compelling the present appeal. Notwithstanding the High Court’s refusal, the Supreme Court proceeded to issue notice and grant interim protection.
Parallel proceedings against Gandhi have also been under judicial scrutiny. In May 2025, a Special MP/MLA Court in Varanasi dismissed as non-maintainable a complaint alleging that Gandhi had hurt religious sentiments by describing Lord Ram as a “fictional character.” The Court relied on provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in its rejection.
In another matter, involving alleged defamatory remarks against freedom fighter V.D. Savarkar, the Supreme Court on 24 April 2025 issued notice and stayed the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash a summoning order, cautioning that any further “irresponsible statements” could invite suo motu scrutiny.
Appearing for Gandhi in the present case, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi invoked Section 223 BNSS, arguing that the Magistrate had failed to afford the mandatory pre-summoning hearing to the accused, thereby vitiating the cognizance order. Counsel further contended that Gandhi, not being a resident of Lucknow, was entitled to greater judicial circumspection before process was issued.
The complainant, Uday Shanker Srivastava, alleges that Gandhi’s statements during the Bharat Jodo Yatra amounted to imputations harming the reputation of the Indian Army within the meaning of Sections 499–500 of the Indian Penal Code (now paralleled in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The post Indian Army remarks row: Supreme Court extends stay on criminal defamation proceedings against Rahul Gandhi appeared first on India Legal.