Free Speech Doesn’t Extend to Army Defamation, Says Allahabad HC on Rahul Gandhi's Plea to Quash Summons

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on May 29, 2025, rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s challenge to summons issued by a Lucknow court over his controversial remark that “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh," which he allegedly made during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.

In the detailed order uploaded on a later date, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that "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".

A complaint was filed by a retired officer of the Border Roads Organization (BRO), who stated that Gandhi’s comment—made during a press interaction on December 16, 2022, during the Bharat Jodo Yatra—was defamatory to the armed forces and hurtful to his own morale as a former defense personnel.

While Gandhi’s counsel contended that the statement was political speech protected under Article 19(1)(a), the high court drew a sharp distinction. “Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to defame the Indian Army,” the judge wrote in the 25-page judgment.

One of the key arguments from Gandhi’s counsel was that the complainant, not being the direct subject of the alleged defamation, lacked the legal standing to file the case. However, the court rejected this, holding that even indirect injury to one’s dignity—especially in matters of national honor—can be actionable under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"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 than against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed. The Section itself contemplates filing of complaint by some person aggrieved by the offence, although the offence has not been committed against him. The complainant has stated that the he is a senior citizen, who has retired from the post of Director in Border Roads Organization, which position is equivalent to the post of Colonel in Indian Army. The complainant has immense respect towards the Indian Army and the disrespectful comment against the Indian Army made with the object of demoralizing the Indian Army and portraying its achievements in a demeaning manner, amount to an insult of the Indian Army as well of as of the entire nation, which has hurt the complainant. 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,"court observed. 

Court also underscored the context of Gandhi’s remarks. As they were made in a press briefing, court held, that it was evident that the intention was for them to be widely reported and disseminated. The applicant had a clear intention and message to the persons present that his statement be published in newspapers and magazines, the court noted.

Citing a long line of Supreme Court judgments, the high court emphasized that its role at this stage is not to determine guilt or innocence but to assess whether there is a prima facie case to go to trial. It found the trial court’s summoning order well-reasoned and legally sound.

The court also addressed Gandhi’s attempt to invoke recent judgments like Javed Ahmad Hajam and Kaushal Kishore, which had expanded the scope of free speech. Court dismissed these precedents as contextually irrelevant.

The high court also highlighted the observations from the apex court, cautioning Gandhi about making 'irresponsible statements about freedom fighters'.

"The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings against the applicant but has restrained him from making irresponsible statements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that any further statement and the Hon’ble Supreme Court will take suo motu and no question of sanction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court will not allow the applicant to speak anything about the freedom fighters," court noted. 

Therefore, finding no merit in Gandhi's application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., court dismissed it. 

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. State of UP and Another

Download judgment here