'If you're a true Indian...': Supreme Court raps Rahul Gandhi over China land grab claim, stays proceedings against LoP

The Supreme Court of India has rebuked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi regarding his remarks about the Indian Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, specifically his claim that China had taken 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory.

The court expressed that such statements are unbecoming of a "true Indian." In a recent hearing, the top court stayed the proceedings against Gandhi in a Lucknow court.

The bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant. The top court also questioned Gandhi’s choice of platform for his statements, asking: "You are the Leader of the Opposition. Say things in Parliament, why do you have to say it on social media?"

The bench further inquired into Gandhi's claims, asking, "How do you get to know that 2000 sq km land was occupied by the Chinese? If you are a true Indian, you wouldn't say such a thing," highlighting concerns over the sensitivity of the matter.

Gandhi's controversial remarks were made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022. The Supreme Court scrutinised his statements by questioning, "If you're a true Indian, you wouldn't say it."

Previously, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi's plea that aimed to challenge the summoning order and the complaint against him, arguing that the allegations were lodged with mala fide intent.

The complainant, Udai Shanker Srivastava, alleged that Gandhi’s comments were derogatory towards the Indian Army amidst the ongoing border tensions with China. The basis of this accusation has led to the legal proceedings that are now temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court.

Gandhi’s legal team has contended that the remarks were being misinterpreted, asserting political motivations. The Supreme Court's intervention has halted the legal process temporarily, pending further review of the notices issued to the parties involved.

The court’s remarks underscore the national sensitivity surrounding territorial integrity and the responsibility of public figures to handle such issues with care. This highlights the importance of maintaining national unity and the potential consequences of public statements.