Supreme Court Rebukes Rahul Gandhi Over Galwan Comments: "Were You There?"

This case brings to light the delicate balance between freedom of speech and national responsibility. As a prominent public figure, Rahul Gandhi now faces not only legal scrutiny but also sharp moral questions from the country's highest court. The upcoming hearings will decide how this political and legal battle unfolds.

Supreme Court Slams Rahul Gandhi for Comments on Galwan Clash

In a heated courtroom exchange, the Supreme Court of India sharply criticized opposition leader Rahul Gandhi over remarks he made about the Indian Army following the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China. The court questioned the credibility of Gandhi’s statements and pointedly asked how he claimed knowledge of Chinese occupation of Indian territory.

“Were You There in Galwan?”: SC Grills Rahul Gandhi

During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih expressed serious concern about Gandhi’s statements regarding alleged Chinese occupation of 2,000 sq. km of Indian territory.

Justice Datta asked,

"Were you there in Galwan? Do you have any credible material to support such a claim?"

These remarks came in response to arguments made by senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Gandhi in the case.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief, But With Tough Questions

Although the court issued a temporary stay on the criminal defamation proceedings against Rahul Gandhi, it made it clear that spreading baseless allegations about national security matters is a serious issue.

Justice Datta questioned,

"If you were a true Indian, would you make such comments about your own armed forces?"

He further emphasized that while leaders are free to question policies, they must do so responsibly and through the appropriate forums.

"Why Not Say It in Parliament?"

When Singhvi argued that Gandhi was simply raising concerns as a leader of the opposition, the court responded sharply.

“Why not raise these concerns in Parliament instead of on social media or in press interviews?” asked Justice Datta.

The court reminded the petitioner that public figures must exercise caution and not mislead the public, especially on issues concerning the army and national security.

Defamation Case Background

The defamation case was originally filed by Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former Director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). The complaint claimed that Gandhi's repeated comments — especially claims that Indian soldiers were being beaten up by Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh — damaged the reputation of the Indian Army.

Allahabad High Court Had Also Criticized Gandhi

Earlier, on May 29, the Allahabad High Court had rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea to quash the criminal case. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi had stated that “freedom of expression has limits, and defaming the Indian Army is not protected under it.”

The HC had refused to cancel the summons issued to Gandhi by an MP/MLA court in Lucknow related to this matter.

Procedural Gaps Admitted by Gandhi’s Legal Team

Dr. Singhvi also brought up a procedural issue under BNSS Section 223, arguing that the accused must be heard before taking cognizance in criminal cases. However, Justice Datta noted that this point wasn’t raised in the High Court earlier. Singhvi admitted the lapse.

What's Next?

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the matter in detail and has issued a notice on Rahul Gandhi’s Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's refusal to cancel proceedings. A three-week interim stay has been granted, but the court has signaled that the matter is far from over.