Why Supreme Court's 'true Indian' rebuke to Rahul Gandhi holds no legal binding

India Today

2 days ago

On Monday, the Supreme Court of India stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, stemming from remarks he made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022.The Congress MP had claimed that the Chinese army occupied 2,000 sq km of Indian territory and was 'thrashing' Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. These statements led to a defamation complaint from a retired defence official in Lucknow, alleging the remarks insulted and tarnished the image of the Indian Army. The Allahabad High Court had earlier declined to quash the complaint, after which Gandhi had appealed to the Supreme Court.advertisementDuring the Supreme Court hearing, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih made pointed oral observations, questioning the senior Congress leader about the credibility and basis of his statements, remarking, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say all this.' The bench also asked why such claims weren't raised in Parliament instead of on social media or public forums. Despite these oral remarks, the court granted a stay on the ongoing lower court proceedings, awaiting further consideration.
Oral observations are comments, queries, or remarks made by judges during court hearings. They are intended as a means for the bench to seek clarification, test the arguments of counsel, and engage in a dynamic examination of the facts, reasoning, and broader implications of a case. Such observations are usually not a part of the official judicial record or operative orders of the court.This foundational principle governing the authority of judicial pronouncements in India is derived directly from the Constitution. Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950, states that "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.'The operative phrase in this provision is "law declared." This is universally interpreted to mean the formal, written, and reasoned judgment that is officially pronounced and signed by the judges after due deliberation. The process of "declaring law" is a formal act, not a casual or conversational one.Oral observations made by a judge during a hearing do not meet the standard of "law declared." These remarks are part of the deliberative process itself; they are not the final product of that process. They are tentative, exploratory, and often made to test the arguments presented by counsel, to seek clarification, or to express a provisional thought. Therefore, such observations fall outside the mandate of Article 141 and do not carry the force of binding law.Even within a final, written judgment, not every statement made by the court has the same legal weight. A judgment is primarily composed of two elements: the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.advertisementThe ratio decidendi, or the "reason for the decision," is the core legal principle or rule of law that was necessary for the court to arrive at its final decision. It is this specific part of the judgment that constitutes the "law declared" and is binding on lower courts.Conversely, obiter dicta, meaning "things said by the way," are observations made by the court that are not essential to the final determination of the case. These might include hypothetical scenarios, discussions on broader legal principles not directly at issue, or passing comments. While obiter dicta from the Supreme Court are given immense respect and have significant persuasive value, they are not strictly binding as precedent.Given this established hierarchy within a formal written judgment, it follows logically that oral remarks made during a hearing, which are not even recorded as part of the judgment, rank significantly lower than obiter dicta. They are pre-decisional dialogues and cannot be elevated to the status of either ratio decidendi or even formal obiter dicta.WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ORAL OBSERVATIONS?While legally non-binding, oral observations made by judges serve as an integral part of the dynamic dialogue between the bench and the bar.advertisementJudges often raise contrary views or ask hypothetical questions during the course of a hearing to test the strength and coherence of an argument. Often, oral observations are also a means for the bench to seek more information or clarity on a particular fact or point of law.Most importantly, however, oral remarks made during the course of a hearing can provide valuable insight into the preliminary thinking of the judges on the bench. This often allows lawyers to focus their arguments on the primary areas of concern for the judge.However, these observations are open to change. A judge may express a preliminary view orally but may come to an entirely different conclusion after hearing further arguments or upon deeper reflection during the writing of the judgment.Oral observations made by the Supreme Court often make it to the news headlines. In July 2022, the Supreme Court made strong remarks blaming BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for 'making the country burn' due to her televised remarks. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala said Sharma was 'single handedly responsible' for the violence and outrage arising out of her remarks and said she should 'apologize to the whole country'. None of these statements formed part of the official order of the court.advertisementMore recently, in February 2025 the Supreme Court chastised YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia for a controversial joke stating 'there is something very dirty in his mind'. The bench called his comments 'disgusting', 'filthy' and 'insulting', though none of these observations made it to the final written order, either.Similarly, while the Supreme Court's sharp oral rebuke of Rahul Gandhi carries undeniable rhetorical and political impact, it does not amount to a legal determination of his patriotism; nor does it have any binding effect on the definition of a 'true Indian.'As explained above, the only authoritative doctrine to emerge from a case is found in the court's final judgment, not in real-time exchanges during arguments. This is a distinction that is not just technical, it's foundational to India's judicial discipline.- EndsMust Watch