"He Is No VVIP": Complainant Tells Supreme Court Seeking Early Hearing Of Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case Over Remarks On Indian Army

The Supreme Court has asked the complainant in the criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi to file an early hearing application after the issue was mentioned before it.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the complainant, said that Gandhi is not a VVIP and the appeal filed by Gandhi before the apex court against cognizance taken by the Magistrate, was not getting listed.

"He is not a VVIP. The matter was listed five months ago also and was not taken up. This does not augur well for the institution as well," Bhatia said.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana underscored that "everyone is equal before us" and asked the complainant to follow procedure.

In December last year, the Supreme Court has extended the interim protection granted to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case stemming from his remarks about the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra. The Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma took note of the ongoing proceedings before the trial court and directed that the stay on those proceedings would continue.

The Court had then also scheduled the matter for final hearing in April 2026. The complaint alleges that Gandhi’s comments, made in the context of the 2020 Galwan Valley clash between India and China, amounted to defamation of the Indian Army. The trial court proceedings were earlier stayed by the Supreme Court, a protection now extended until the matter is heard in detail. The Court clarified that no coercive steps should be taken against Gandhi in the meantime.

On August 4, the Supreme Court had stayed further proceedings in the case and issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant. The Bench had also come down heavily on Gandhi for his alleged remarks against the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, questioning the basis of his statements and asserting that such comments were unbecoming of a “true Indian.”

At one point, Justice Dipankar Datta had remarked sharply, “If you were a true Indian, you would not say all these things.” He had questioned how Gandhi claimed that 2,000 km of Indian territory was occupied by China. “Are you there? Do you have any credible material? Why would you make these statements without anything? Just because you’re a responsible leader of the Opposition, it does not mean you say such things,” Justice Datta had observed.

To this remark of the Court, many leaders of the Congress party and other INDIA bloc constituents had denounced the judicial comments as misplaced and inappropriate. In a joint statement, members of the INDIA alliance, including the Congress party, said they “respectfully disagreed” with the Court’s observation, describing it as “extraordinary and unwarranted” and an “attack on the democratic right of political leaders to question the government on matters of national interest.”

The complaint, filed by Advocate Harishankar Pandey, alleged that Gandhi’s remarks had hurt religious sentiments. However, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neeraj Kumar Tripathi rejected the plea as “non-maintainable,” citing provisions under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. In another case over Gandhi's statements, the Supreme Court on April 24, 2025, issued notice and stayed the operation of the Allahabad High Court’s order refusing to quash the summons issued to him in a defamation case concerning his remarks against freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. “You have a strong case on law, and you will get a stay. But if there are any further irresponsible statements from him, the Court will be compelled to take up the matter suo motu,”

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Hearing Date: September 4, 2025

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana