The Supreme Court has extended its interim order staying proceedings against Rahul Gandhi over alleged derogatory remarks against the Indian Army. The decision provides temporary relief as the case awaits further hearing later in November.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court extended its interim order staying proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a Lucknow court case until November 20, 2025, over his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi, following a request from Gandhi’s counsel seeking time to file a rejoinder affidavit. The bench stated:
“In view of the letter circulated by counsel for the petitioner seeking adjournment for filing the rejoinder affidavit, list the matters on November 20, 2025. The interim order granted earlier on August 4, 2025, is extended till the next date of hearing.”
Background of the Case
The complaint, filed by Udai Shanker Srivastava, alleges that Rahul Gandhi made “derogatory” comments against the Indian Army while referring to the India-China border tensions during his December 2022 yatra.
The Lucknow trial court subsequently summoned Gandhi for trial under defamation charges. Gandhi challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his plea on May 29, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Two additional petitions related to the matter were also listed alongside Gandhi’s plea.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Observations
While staying the trial court proceedings on August 4, the Supreme Court sharply questioned the basis of Gandhi’s alleged remarks:
“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 remarked:
“Why do you make these statements without having any material? If you are a true Indian, you won’t say such a thing.”
The Court then sought responses from both the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant.
Arguments From Rahul Gandhi’s Legal Team
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gandhi, contended that the trial court’s summoning was procedurally flawed. He cited Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that:
- Prior hearing of the accused is mandatory before cognisance of a complaint.
- The trial court did not follow this requirement.
- Gandhi is not a resident of Lucknow, necessitating greater scrutiny before summoning.
Advocate Pranshu Agarwal also argued that the complaint appeared “fabricated” and lacked prima facie merit.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Rahul Gandhi
