Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi slams fake narrative after Supreme Court relief to Rahul Gandhi, saying “Victor becomes loser, loser gloats” in a fiery viral X post.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Dr. Abhishwk Singhvi begins with a sharp observation: “Losers crowing whole day against #RG!” Despite the legal proceedings going in Rahul Gandhi’s favour, a large section of social media interpreted, or rather portrayed, the day’s events as a setback.
The core irony he points out is how a court victory is twisted into a setback by a highly orchestrated propaganda machine. Meanwhile, those who face judicial pushback parade themselves as victors.
ALSO READ: Defamation Case: Court Postpones Hearing Against Rahul Gandhi; Reschedules to July 1
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Gandhi in court, took to social media to offer a pointed critique of this narrative inversion. In his post, he called out the irony: “Victor in court becomes loser; loser gloats as if he got an unprecedented victory (!) & janta confused & confounded.”
Dr. Singhvi emphasized that the events in court were being grossly misrepresented in the public discourse. First, he pointed out that the Supreme Court had not only issued a notice but also granted a stay on the defamation proceedings—and this was done despite strong opposition from the complainant’s senior counsel, which is a significant procedural relief in Gandhi’s favour.
Second, Singhvi noted that the oral observations made by the bench—such as “a true Indian will not say this”—were being misused and misquoted out of context. Such remarks, he explained, are standard judicial tools meant to provoke legal reasoning, not declarations of guilt or judgment.
Finally, he criticized the broader political response, arguing that BJP influencers and online supporters deliberately distorted the day’s courtroom developments, portraying it as a defeat for Gandhi, when in reality, the legal outcome was clearly in his favour. In Singhvi’s view, this episode reflects how political narrative often overshadows judicial fact, leaving the public confused while the truth gets buried under spin.
Background of the Case
The case in question stems from Rahul Gandhi’s comments made during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, wherein he stated,
“Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh.”
The remark, directed at the government’s handling of the India-China border conflict, soon spiraled into a criminal defamation case filed by former BRO Director Uday Shankar Srivastava. The complainant alleged that Gandhi’s statement demoralized the Indian Army and insulted its members.
The case made its way through the legal web, first to a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow, then to the Allahabad High Court, and finally to the Supreme Court. The High Court had earlier refused to quash the summons, arguing that Gandhi’s words could be viewed as defamatory towards the armed forces.
The Supreme Court Hearing
On Monday, the Supreme Court, in a hearing that drew widespread attention, stayed the criminal defamation proceedings and issued a notice to the State, effectively pausing the case for now. The Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, did not shy away from expressing concern over the content and platform of Gandhi’s statement, particularly why such remarks were made via social media instead of Parliament.
“What is the credible material? A true Indian will not say this,”
remarked the Court
Freedom of Speech vs. Defamation
This case yet again underscores a longstanding tension in Indian constitutional jurisprudence: the fine line between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the limits imposed by defamation laws.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court had earlier stated that free speech does not extend to making statements that defame the armed forces, a position that resonates with nationalistic sentiment but also triggers complex legal debates around who is the aggrieved party and whether public interest justifies critical commentary.
Dr. Singhvi, defending Gandhi, aptly noted,
“You cannot harass somebody like this with defamation charges.”
His argument emphasized that defamation must stem from an aggrieved party, and political commentary, however sharp, cannot always be criminalized.
The Supreme Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the case yet. It has simply put the process on hold and called for further scrutiny. The next hearing is in three weeks.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Rahul Gandhi