Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SITTING AT LUCKNOW
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Rahul Gandhi – Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Distt. Lko. And Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. - 4623 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Mohammed Samar Ansari, Pranshu Agrawal
For the Opposite Party : G.A.
A public figure can be held liable for defamation if statements made are derogatory and not protected under official duties, and a complainant can have locus standi based on emotional distress caused by such statements.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Defamation - Application challenging summoning order for defamation against a public figure based on derogatory statements about the Indian Army - Complainant, a retired officer, claims emotional distress and national insult - Court finds prima facie case for trial established, dismissing application. (Paras 2, 9, 19, 42)
(B) Defamation - Elements - The court emphasized that the statements made were not in the course of official duties and could be seen as demoralizing the Indian Army, thus constituting defamation. (Paras 9, 19)
(C) Locus Standi - The court ruled that the complainant, despite not being a direct target of the statements, had sufficient standing due to his position and respect for the Indian Army. (Paras 10, 14)
(D) Judicial Discretion - The court noted that the exercise of discretion by the trial court in summoning the applicant was appropriate and not arbitrary. (Paras 19, 42) (E) Inherent Powers - The court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash a summoning order when a statutory remedy is available. (Paras 34, 42) (F)
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defamation complaint against public figure for derogatory statements. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. trial court's order based on prima facie evidence of defamation. (Para 9) |
| 3. locus standi of complainant in defamation cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. interpretation of 'aggrieved person' in defamation law. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. judicial discretion in issuing summons in defamation cases. (Para 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. precedent relevance and case-specific determinations. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. inherent powers of the court versus statutory remedies. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. dismissal of application under section 482 cr.p.c. due to lack of merit. (Para 39 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Shri Pranshu Agrawal and Sri. Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vinod Kumar Shahi, the leared Additional Advocate General, Dr. V. K. Singh, the learned Government Advocate, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I and Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 – the State of U.P.
2. The instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging validity of an order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.109161 of 2023, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow titled “Udai Shankar Srivastava v. Rahul Gandhi”, summoning the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code. The applicant has also sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
3. The opposite party No.2 has filed the aforesaid complaint against the applicant stating that the complainant is a senior citizen, who has retired from the post of Director in Border Roads Organization, which position is equivalent to the post of Colonel in Indian Army. The complainant has immense respect towards the courage and valor of the Indian Army and any disrespectful comment against the Indian Army made with the object of demoralizing the Indian Army and portraying its achievements in a demeaning manner, amount to an insult of the Indian Army as well of as of the entire nation, which hurts the complainant. The applicant, who has held the office of a Member of the Indian Parliament several times, stated on 16.12.2022 during his ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ in presence of media persons and a large gathering of public regarding a face-off that took place between the Indian Army and the Chinese Army at the border of India in Arunachal Pradesh on 09.12.2022 that “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.”
4. A news item was published in this regard on a news portal - opindia.com under the heading “Chinese troops are thrashing Indian Army soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh’: Rahul Gandhi on Tawang clash” wherein it is published that on 16th December 2022, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that Chinese troops are thrashing Indian army soldiers along the line of actual control (LAC).
5. The complainant stated that the aforesaid statement given by the applicant is false and baseless and it was given with an evil intention of demoralizing the Indian Army and to damage the faith of the Indian population on the Indian Army, whereas the truth is that in the scuffle that took place in Yangsi region Arunachal Pradesh on 09.12.2022, the Indian Army successfully restrained the Chinese Army from entering the territory protected by it and badly chased them away. The complainant further stated that in the official statement issued by the Indian Army on 12.12.2022, it was stated that:-
“On December 09, 2022, Peo
