Supreme Court’s Role: Law above Political Loyalties

The Origins of the Controversy

On 4 August, the honorable Supreme Court of India confronted the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, over his controversial remarks during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on 16 December 2022. Referring to the 2020 clash between Indian and Chinese forces, Gandhi alleged that the Chinese Army had “captured 2,000 sq km of Indian territory,” “killed 20 Indian soldiers,” and “thrashed our soldiers.”

These statements sparked outrage and led former Border Roads Organization (BRO) director, Uday Shankar Srivastava, to file a criminal complaint. The petitioner condemned Gandhi’s comments as false and malicious, claiming they were intended to defame the Indian Army and weaken the morale of its soldiers. Thus began the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi.

High Court’s Stand on Free Speech and Defamation

In February 2025, Gandhi sought to quash the defamation proceedings and the summons issued by a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow. However, on 29 May 2025, the Allahabad High Court rejected his plea. The court stressed that Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech, but it does not grant the right to defame individuals or respected institutions like the armed forces. The judgment clearly stated: “No freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or to the Indian Army.”

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Gandhi moved the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court stayed the proceedings but asked Gandhi directly if he had proof for his claims. During the hearing, a verbal remark — “If you are a true Indian, you wouldn’t say this” — drew sharp political reactions. Congress leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi, criticized the judiciary for supposedly overstepping its role.

The Debate over Judicial Remarks

Former Additional Solicitor General and senior advocate Raju Ramachandran fueled the debate with his essay, “The court is not Rahul Gandhi’s uncle. Its job is to protect rights, not preach.” His criticism, however, overlooked key facts. The Court’s remarks were verbal observations during the hearing, not part of the official order granting interim relief. Furthermore, India’s Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make pointed remarks when necessary to protect constitutional values.

Articles 124 to 147 safeguard the judiciary’s independence through fixed tenures, protection from arbitrary removal, and contempt powers. These safeguards are not privileges but essential tools to ensure the Court can act as a guardian of rights and a check on arbitrary power. Sharp language, sarcasm, and scolding are not unusual in judicial proceedings. For instance, in 2022, the Supreme Court told a lawyer challenging the Agnipath scheme, “You may be a ‘Veer’ but you are not an ‘Agniveer’.” In 2024, it rebuked state administrations over bulldozer demolitions, calling them reminiscent of a “lawless, ruthless state of affairs.”

Public Figures and Heightened Responsibility

Courts have consistently held public figures to a higher standard of accountability in their statements. The Madhya Pradesh High Court once condemned an MP’s derogatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi after Operation Sindoor as “dangerous” and “language of the gutters.” Similarly, in 2019, then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was summoned in a criminal defamation case for retweeting defamatory tweets. The Delhi High Court emphasized that public figures must avoid defamatory statements, even without explicit intent.

While Ramachandran supports the opposition’s claim that political leaders have a duty to question the government, both the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court have distinguished between criticizing policies and spreading baseless allegations about the armed forces. The latter not only risks reputational harm but also endangers morale during critical times.

Ramachandran’s suggestion that judges should remain “circumspect” misrepresents judicial responsibility. The Supreme Court has only made preliminary observations and will decide the case after hearing both sides and reviewing evidence. A timid judiciary would serve political interests, not the public.

Free Speech and Reasonable Restrictions

Ramachandran’s view that courts should not tell citizens what they “ought to have said” ignores constitutional law. Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions for reasons such as state security, foreign relations, defamation, and public order. This principle was reinforced in the landmark State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952).

In Gandhi’s case, the Court must determine whether his remarks cross the boundary into defamation, which is a legitimate restriction on free speech. Ironically, these very restrictions were introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, under the leadership of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru — Rahul Gandhi’s great-grandfather.

Thus, the Supreme Court is not acting as an “uncle” but following constitutional precedent — one that “Chacha Nehru” himself established. Democratic accountability requires courts to question both the powerful and their critics. The defamation case against Rahul Gandhi is not about silencing dissent but about ensuring that speech remains responsible, factual, and respectful of national institutions.