PTI New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Monday censured Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra by stating, “If you are a true Indian, you wouldn’t say such a thing.”
The top court, however, stayed the proceedings initiated before a Lucknow court in the matter against Gandhi.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant in the case.
“You are leader of Opposition. Why don’t you say things in Parliament, why do you have to say it on social media?” the bench asked.
The top court continued, “How do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory has been occupied by Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material?” The bench further asked, “Why do you make these statements without having any material? If you are a true Indian, you won’t say such a thing.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, submitted that if the leader of Opposition cannot raise issues, it would be an unfortunate situation.
“If he can’t say these things which are published in the press, then he can’t be a leader of Opposition,” Singhvi said.
On the bench’s true Indian remark, Singhvi replied, “It is also possible that a true Indian will say that our 20 Indian soldiers were beaten up and killed. This is also a matter of concern.”
The top court then said, “When there is a conflict across the border, is it unusual to have casualties on either sides?”
Singhvi said Gandhi was only on the point of proper disclosure and raising concerns about the suppression of information.
Justice Datta said being a responsible leader of Opposition, Gandhi ought to not have done it, as there was a proper forum to raise such questions.
While agreeing that Gandhi could have made the comments in a better manner, Singhvi said the complaint was nothing but an attempt to harass the petitioner.
Singhvi referred to Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and said a prior hearing of the accused was mandatory before the court took cognisance of a criminal complaint, which was not done in the present case.
The top court then issued notice on the plea while seeking response in three weeks and stayed the proceedings in the Lucknow trial court.
