‘True Indian wouldn't say this': SC rebukes Rahul Gandhi for claims about China's border incursions
A bench of Justices Dipakar Datta and AG Masih made the comments in the context of his petition seeking that defamation proceedings against him be quashed. The court on Monday went on to stay the proceedings for three weeks.
The bench asked the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha how he had verified claims that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory had been occupied.
'Were you there?' Datta asked, according to Live Law. 'Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without any...If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this.'
In response, Gandhi's counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that it was also possible for a 'true Indian' to say that 20 Indian soldiers were beaten up and killed, and that this was a matter of concern. He was referring to clashes between Indian and Chinese soldiers on the night between 15 and 16 June, 2020 in the Galwan Valley along the Line of Actual Control.
Datta, however, asked why Gandhi made such allegations on social media, instead of raising questions in Parliament, The Hindu reported.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant, seeking responses within three weeks, while temporarily halting further legal action until then.
The case pertains to comments made by Gandhi on December 16, 2022, about a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies along the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh's Tawang.
The two sides had confronted each other with melee weapons on December 9, 2022, leading to injuries on both sides.
Gandhi's remarks about the violence were made during the Congress' Bharat Jodo Yatra, a march from Kanyakumari to Kashmir against the allegedly divisive policies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
A former director of the Border Roads Organisation, Uday Shankar Srivastava, filed a defamation complaint against Gandhi. His lawyer claimed that the Congress leader's statements were derogatory and defamed the Indian Army.
Gandhi approached the Supreme Court in the matter after the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings in May.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
a few seconds ago
- New Indian Express
Post-Op Sindoor, IAF, Navy to place mega orders for BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles
NEW DELHI: Soon after they caused significant damage to Pakistani military infrastructure during Operation Sindoor, Indian forces are placing mega orders for the Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles. Top defence sources told ANI that a high-level defence ministry meeting is expected to give clearance to the procurement of a large number of BrahMos missiles for the Indian Navy warships, along with ground and air-launched versions of these weapons for the Indian Air Force soon. The missiles were used in a big way to hit Pakistani air bases and Army cantonments all along its length and breadth during the four-day conflict. The Navy would be using the missiles for equipping its Veer-class warships while the Indian Air Force would be using them to equip its Russian-origin Su-30 MKI fighter jet fleet, the sources said. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the performance of the indigenous weapon systems in the conflict, saying, "During Operation Sindoor, the world saw the capabilities of our indigenous weapons. Our Air Defence Systems, missiles, and drones have proved the strength of 'Atmanirbhar Bharat', especially the Brahmos missiles." In the first phase of the conflict, when India launched attacks on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, including the terror headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba in Pakistani Punjab province, the BrahMos missile was the main weapon of choice for the Indian Air Force, which hit targets with great precision. The BrahMos caused further damage to Pakistani air bases, and hence the Pakistan Army tried to retaliate, protecting the terrorists and their infrastructure.
Mint
a few seconds ago
- Mint
Trump's U-turn: After accusing Zelensky of ‘starting war', how US is using Ukraine to justify tariff on ‘friend' India
The day was February 28, 2025 and the White House prepared to welcome Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a meeting with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. When the two leaders met, they shook hands and politely discussed diplomatic matters among other things. Minutes later, the meeting turned into a shouting match between Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Volodymyr Zelensky after the Ukrainian president emphasised the need for 'security guarantees for Ukraine' for any deal to happen. That started the clash, with the United States accusing Ukraine of being ungrateful for American support and of 'stalling' peace talks with Russia – warning, 'You're either going to make a deal, or we're out.' 'You see the hatred he's got for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. That's tough to make a deal with that kind of hate,' Trump said as the whole world watched on LIVE television. Accused of 'starting the war', Zelensky left and the deal, that would have given the US rights to rare earth minerals in Ukraine, was not signed that day. Cut to July 2025 – Ukraine has now become the flashpoint in Donald Trump's trade war with India. In a stunning shift, Donald Trump, who once pointed the finger at Zelensky for starting the Russia-Ukraine war, has now trained his guns on India – imposing 25 per cent tariffs and additional penalties for New Delhi's business ties with Moscow, accusing New Delhi of bankrolling Vladimir Putin's war machine by buying Russian oil. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have spoken over the phone, but not met since Trump returned to the White House in January, despite both leaders expressing their desire for face-to-face talks. After one of the calls that happened in May, the US president said his call with Vladimir Putin went very well and that Moscow and Kyiv 'will immediately start negotiations' toward a ceasefire and end to the war. As Trump sounded hopeful, the Russian president said more 'compromises' were needed. By the end of the month, Trump – sensing no end to the Ukraine war – had started threatening sanctions on Russian products, warning Vladimir Putin that he was 'playing with fire'. Trump even admitted that Putin was not looking to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. 'I'm very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin, because I don't think he's there, and I'm very disappointed. I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad,' he said. Donald Trump has often portrayed himself as a dealmaker and global peacemaker, but as Russia refused to fall in line with his expectations, the US president began to show signs of frustration. Buoyed by his own expectations and frustrated over not being able to bring the Ukraine conflict to an end, Trump shifted blame outward. He slapped 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods and announced additional penalties for India's business ties with Russia. But Trump didn't stop there. He threatened even more tariffs for India's purchase of Russian oil, accusing the country of 'fueling' the Ukraine war. What could be called a striking twist, Ukraine, a country Trump had once accused of 'starting the war,' is now at the centre of his trade war with India, which he has used as a geopolitical weapon to justify the tariffs on 'friend' India.
The Hindu
a few seconds ago
- The Hindu
Tamil Nadu people are not naive to get provoked by Madurai Adheenam's ‘unnecessary' comments: Madras High Court
Are the people of Tamil Nadu so naive to get provoked by 'unnecessary' remarks made by Madurai Adheenam who had termed a minor road accident as an alleged assassination attempt against him, suspected involvement of Pakistan and claimed that the alleged assassins were wearing skull caps and sporting beards? asked Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025). The judge posed the question when Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R. Muniyapparaj vehemently opposed a petition filed by by the ascetic Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the cyber crime wing of the Greater Chennai City Police on the basis of a complaint lodged by R. Rajendiran, an advocate. The FIR was registered on June 24 under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause rioting), 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) and 353(2) (making false statements to create communal enmity) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). After watching the CCTV footage of the road accident played by the APP on a tablet, the judge was convinced that it was the Adheenam's car which had been driven rashly when he travelled from Madurai to Chennai on May 2. He said, a major accident had been averted because of the sagacity of the other car driver who had pulled the brakes at the right moment. 'Merely because the occupants of the other car were Muslims, the petitioner appears to have escalated the issue. Are they not your brethren? Are they also not as much Indian as you are?' the judge asked the Adheenam's counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan who replied that the ascetic was forced to speak only by the mediapersons at a private event in Chennai. The counsel also stated the petitioner had nowhere named any religion and the FIR itself had been registered nearly two months after the remarks were allegedly made. On the other hand, the APP claimed multiple protests were held across Tamil Nadu against the Adheenam's remarks and that cognisable offences had been clearly made out warranting registration of a FIR. The APP also stated many private complaints too had been filed against the Adheenam for his remarks. However, the judge felt the resources of the police department could be utilised better for probing serious criminal cases than cases of the present nature. He, later, granted time till August 14 for the police to file its counter affidavit to the FIR quash petition.
