‘Do you have any credible material?’: SC slams Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Army; stays defamation proceedings

Presiding over a two-judge bench, Justice Dipankar Datta told Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, who appeared for the Congress leader, “We have read the comments… Tell us… How do you get to know that 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory have been occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without having any…?”

“If you are a true Indian, you would not say all these things,” Justice Dutta said.

Singhvi said the comments were in “public interest”, and added, “It is also possible that a true Indian will say look, our 20 Indian soldiers were beaten up and killed. This is also a matter of concern.”

Justice Datta then asked, “When there is a conflict across the border, is it unusual to have casualties on either side?” Singhvi replied: “Of course, not. I am on disclosure.”

Justice Datta asked, “If you are on disclosure, you being the Leader of Opposition in Parliament… Why don’t you ask the question…” in Parliament. He then asked: “Why do you have to say this in media or social media posts?”

The judge said, “You go on saying whatever you want. Article 19(1)(a) rights are there. That doesn’t mean that being a responsible Leader of Opposition, you do this.”

Singhvi said he agrees with the court that the concerns could have been put differently. “Your Lordships may find this is not the way to put it. I agree… But this is not the way to harass a person by filing defamation.”

Singhvi also questioned the Allahabad High Court’s reasoning, saying it concluded that while the complainant is not a person aggrieved, he is a person defamed. Seeking a stay, he contended that the principle that the Supreme Court has always followed is that while it may not agree with what is said, it is not going to be an inhibition on Article 19(1)(a) rights.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who represented the complainant, opposed the plea for a stay on the proceedings.

The Supreme Court has in earlier judgments underlined that the invocation of national security itself cannot be a ground to limit fundamental rights. In the 2021 case involving the alleged use of Pegasus malware against citizens, the court had said that “national security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning”.

“It is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to national security, the scope of judicial review is limited. However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of ‘national security’ is raised. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this Court should be circumspect in encroaching upon the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review,” it had said.