Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected Rahul Gandhi's plea, holding that freedom of speech does not extend to making defamatory remarks against the Indian Army. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko (2025). 

What was the Background of Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko,2025 Case? 

• This is a criminal defamation case filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Rahul Gandhi for allegedly making derogatory statements about the Indian Army. 
• Facts Leading to the Complaint: 
  • On 16th December, 2022, during his 'Bharat Jodo Yatra', Rahul Gandhi made public statements in the presence of media persons and a large gathering regarding a border clash between Indian and Chinese armies that occurred on 9th December, 2022, in Arunachal Pradesh. 
  • Gandhi reportedly said: "People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometers of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn't ask a question to them about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know. 
  • The statement was published on the news portal opindia.com under the headline "Chinese troops are thrashing Indian Army soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh': Rahul Gandhi on Tawang clash." 
  • The Indian Army had officially stated on 12th December, 2022, that during the 9th December incident, People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops contacted the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Tawang Sector, which was contested by Indian troops in a firm and resolute manner, leading to minor injuries to personnel from both sides. 
• Complainant's Allegations: 
  • The complainant alleged that Gandhi's statement was false and made with evil intention to demoralize the Indian Army and damage public faith in the Army. 
  • According to the complainant, the Indian Army successfully restrained the Chinese Army from entering protected territory and chased them away during the December 9 incident. 
  • The complainant, being a retired senior military officer with immense respect for the Indian Army, claimed to be deeply hurt by the allegedly derogatory statement. 
  • The complainant stated that the statement caused mental agony to several nationalists and patriots and had an adverse impact on the morale of citizens. 
  • Three witnesses - Arun Kumar Gupta, Shishir Beer Prasad, and Mohd. Ashfaq Khan - supported the complaint, stating that Gandhi's statement caused them immense mental agony and hurt their sentiments as the statement had adverse impact on national morale. 
  • The case was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow, as Misc. Case No. 109161 of 2023. The trial court issued a summoning order dated 11th February 2025, directing Gandhi to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC (criminal defamation). 
  • Gandhi filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Allahabad High Court, challenging both the validity of the summoning order and seeking quashing of the entire complaint proceedings. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The complainant, being a retired Director of Border Roads Organization (equivalent to Colonel rank) with immense respect for the Indian Army, qualifies as a person aggrieved by alleged derogatory statements against the Army and has locus standi to file complaint under Section 199 CrPC. 
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army. 
• The applicant made the allegedly offending statement while addressing media correspondents with clear intention that his statement be published in newspapers and magazines, which differs from addressing a general public meeting. 
• The trial court rightly summoned the applicant after considering all relevant facts and circumstances, as prima facie case for trial under Section 500 IPC is made out and the statement appears to result in demoralizing the Indian Army and persons attached to it. 
• At the stage of examining validity of summoning order, court is not required to go into merits of rival claims - this exercise would be undertaken by trial court after parties lead evidence in support of their respective claims and defence. 
• The impugned summoning order dated 11th February, 2025, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by High Court, and the application under Section 482 CrPC lacks merits and is dismissed. 

What is Defamation?  

• Section 356 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Defamation 
• Background: 
  • Section 356 of BNS deals with defamation, which was previously covered under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
  • This provision has been retained in the new criminal code with similar structure and content. 
• Definition of Defamation: 
  • Defamation occurs when a person, by words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning another person. 
  • The imputation must be made with intention to harm, or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of that person. 
  • The act must lower the person's reputation in the estimation of others. 
• Key Elements Required: 
  • Making or publishing an imputation concerning any person through words, signs, or visible representations. 
  • Intent to harm the person's reputation, or knowledge that such imputation will cause harm. 
  • The imputation must actually harm the person's reputation by lowering their moral, intellectual, or professional character. 
  • The harm must be in the estimation of others in society. 
• What Constitutes Harm to Reputation ? 
  • Lowering the moral or intellectual character of the person. 
  • Lowering the character in respect of caste or calling/profession. 
  • Damaging the credit or financial standing of the person. 
  • Causing belief that the person's body is in loathsome or disgraceful state. 
  • The imputation must directly or indirectly affect how others view the person. 
• Scope of Defamation: 
  • Can include imputations against deceased persons if it harms their reputation and hurts family feelings. 
  • Extends to companies, associations, or collection of persons as entities. 
  • Includes imputations made in alternative form or expressed ironically. 
  • Covers both direct statements and indirect suggestions or implications. 
• Ten Exceptions (When it's NOT Defamation): 
  • Exception 1: True statements made for public good. 
  • Exception 2: Good faith opinions about public servant's conduct in official duties. 
  • Exception 3: Good faith opinions about person's conduct on public questions. 
  • Exception 4: Substantially true reports of court proceedings. 
  • Exception 5: Good faith opinions about decided court cases and parties' conduct. 
  • Exception 6: Good faith criticism of public performances or publications. 
  • Exception 7: Lawful authority censuring subordinates in good faith. 
  • Exception 8: Good faith accusations to lawful authorities. 
  • Exception 9: Good faith imputations for protection of interests or public good. 
  • Exception 10: Good faith cautions given for protection of others or public good. 
• Punishment Under Section 356: 
  • Subsection (2): Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service for defaming another. 
  • Subsection (3): Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both for printing/engraving defamatory matter knowingly. 
  • Subsection (4): Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both for selling defamatory printed material knowingly. 
• Legal Requirements for Good Faith: 
  • Several exceptions require "good faith" which means honest intention without malice. 
  • Good faith opinions must be based on the specific conduct or performance being criticized. 
  • Cannot extend beyond the particular conduct to general character assassination. 
  • Must serve legitimate purpose like public good, protection of interests, or lawful authority.