Latest news with #Section500
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi must face trial over 'derogatory' Army remarks during Bharat Jodo Yatra: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's plea challenging a summons in a defamation case stemming from his Bharat Jodo Yatra remarks about the Army. LUCKNOW: Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench has dismissed Congress MP Rahul Gandhi 's plea challenging a summons in a defamation case linked to his remarks about the Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra held between Sept 2022 and Jan 2023. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled on May 29 that Gandhi must stand trial, observing a prima facie case exists against him. 'Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and does not include the freedom to make statements defamatory to any person or to the Indian Army,' the court said. The case was filed by retired BRO director Udai Shanker Srivastava, who alleged Gandhi made derogatory comments in Lucknow on Dec 16, 2022, days after a face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. Gandhi had said, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra... but they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2,000 sqkm of Indian land, killing 20 Indian soldiers, and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh... Don't pretend people don't know.' Srivastava called the remarks 'false and baseless', made with an 'evil intention of demoralising the Indian Army and damaging public faith'. He cited the Army's official Dec 12 statement, which described the Dec 9 clash in Arunachal as involving 'minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sutton Coldfield: If You Were Born Between 1940-1975 You Could Be Eligible For This Life Cover Reassured Get Quote Undo On Feb 11 this year, a Lucknow magistrate had summoned Gandhi under Section 500 (defamation) of IPC, saying his comments were not made in discharge of official duty and could demoralise armed forces. Gandhi's lawyer Pranshu Agarwal said in high court the case was politically driven and Srivastava lacked standing under Section 199 CrPC, as the Army—not the petitioner—was the target. Justice Vidyarthi rejected the claim, saying Srivastava was an 'aggrieved person' under the law. The judge said the lower court's summons was based on a 'judicious application of mind' after reviewing complaint details and witness statements, not issued mechanically.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Freedom of speech doesn't allow freedom to make defamatory remarks against Army: Allahabad HC rejects Rahul's plea
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has rejected a petition filed by Leader of Opposition (LoP) and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi to quash summons against him for alleged derogatory remarks, saying that 'right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Army.' Gandhi made the alleged remarks during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022. A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a petition filed by Gandhi challenging the validity of an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning him to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code. The applicant also sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint. 'No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the court said. 'At this stage, while examining the validity of the summoning order, this court is not required to go into the merits of the rival claims and that exercise would have to be taken by the trial court after the parties have availed the opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claim / defence,' the court said in its order. 'In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out. The impugned summoning order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merits and the same is dismissed,' the court added. The defamation complaint against Gandhi is filed by 'Udai Shankar Srivastava, who has retired from the post of Director in Border Roads Organisation, which position is equivalent to the post of Colonel in Indian Army, stated that alleged derogatory remarks was made by him [Gandhi] on December 16, 2022 during during his 'Bharat Jodo Yatra' in the presence of mediapersons 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 December 9, 2022.' According to the complaint, Gandhi purportedly said at the time, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot and what not. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square km 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 complainant also claimed stated that the aforesaid statement given by the applicant is 'false and baseless' and it was given with an intention of demoralising the Army and to damage the faith of the country's population in the Army.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court denies relief to Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Army
Observing that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, the Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in a defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks against the Indian Army. Rejecting Mr. Gandhi's plea challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP-MLA court in Lucknow, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on May 29 said the trial court was right to summon the Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as it had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 'No doubt over the fact that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Javed Ahmad Hajam (Supra) and Kaushal Kishore (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case,' the Court noted. The matter pertains to a case filed against Mr. Gandhi by a former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director, Uday Shankar Srivastava, who alleged that his statements, given after a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies on December 9, 2022, had defamed the Indian Army. The remarks were made by Mr. Gandhi during the Congress's Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Also read: Rahul Gandhi's surrender barb insult of armed forces, says BJP The plea quoted Mr. Gandhi as allegedly saying, '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 lower court in Lucknow had in February summoned Mr. Gandhi in the case, following which the Congress leader approached the High Court. In his plea, Mr. Gandhi said the complainant was not an officer of the Indian Army and hence the defamation case did not hold water. While rejecting the contention of the Congress leader, the High Court noted that under Section 199(1) the Cr.P.C., a person other than the direct victim of an offence can also be considered an 'aggrieved person' if they are impacted by the offence.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court denies relief to Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Indian Army
Observing that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, the Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in a defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks against the Indian Army. Rejecting Mr. Gandhi's plea challenging the defamation case as well as the summoning order passed in February 2025 by an MP-MLA court in Lucknow, a Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on May 29 said the trial court was right to summon the Congress leader to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as it had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 'No doubt over the fact that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression but this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Javed Ahmad Hajam (Supra) and Kaushal Kishore (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case,' the Court noted. The matter pertains to a case filed against Mr. Gandhi by a former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director, Uday Shankar Srivastava, who alleged that his statements, given after a clash between the Indian and Chinese armies on December 9, 2022, had defamed the Indian Army. The remarks were made by Mr. Gandhi during the Congress's Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Also read: Rahul Gandhi's surrender barb insult of armed forces, says BJP The plea quoted Mr. Gandhi as allegedly saying, '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 lower court in Lucknow had in February summoned Mr. Gandhi in the case, following which the Congress leader approached the High Court. In his plea, Mr. Gandhi said the complainant was not an officer of the Indian Army and hence the defamation case did not hold water. While rejecting the contention of the Congress leader, the High Court noted that under Section 199(1) the Cr.P.C., a person other than the direct victim of an offence can also be considered an 'aggrieved person' if they are impacted by the offence.
Malay Mail
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Court allows Chegu Bard's appeal against gag orders in sedition cases
PUTRAJAYA, April 24 — The Court of Appeal today allowed the appeals by Badrul Hisham Shaharin, also known as Chegu Bard, to quash the gag orders preventing him from making statements on his ongoing sedition cases. A three-judge panel comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin ruled in favour of Badrul Hisham on the grounds that there was merit in the appeal. Justice Ahmad Zaidi, in a unanimous decision, said the appellant had appealed against the decisions of the Kuala Lumpur and Johor Baru High Courts in allowing the review application for the gag order. He said that in today's proceedings, the appellant's lawyer contended that the two High Court judges had erred in issuing a 'gag order' against the appellant and cited the Papagomo case, in which the Court of Appeal overturned a similar gag order imposed by the High Court. 'The facts of both cases are essentially the same, and as such, this court is bound by the precedent set in the Papagomo case. 'Furthermore, the court finds that the respondent (public prosecutor) failed to demonstrate any risk of jeopardising a fair trial. Therefore, the appellant's appeal is allowed,' he said. The Kuala Lumpur High Court issued the gag order against Badrul Hisham from making statements or commenting on his case on May 14 last year, while the Johor Baru High Court made the same order on May 20. On April 29 last year, Badrul Hisham, 46, claimed trial at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on a charge of publishing seditious remarks on his Facebook page at 12.15pm in Taman Bukit Cheras on April 6. The charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, punishable under Subsection 4(1) of the same act, provides a RM5,000 maximum fine or a jail term not more than three years or both upon conviction. He was also charged with uttering defamatory remarks believed to tarnish the good name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The offence was committed at the Office of the Comptroller of Royal Household, Istana Negara, at 6pm on Jan 22 the same year. The charge under Section 500 of the Penal Code carries a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment or a fine or both upon conviction. On April 30 of the same year, Badrul Hisham pleaded not guilty at the Johor Baru Sessions Court to publishing seditious material about a casino project in Forest City. He was accused of committing the act via his Facebook account at Mutiara Villa in Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur, at 6.30pm on April 26. Earlier, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, representing Badrul Hisham, argued that the court should allow his client's appeal on the basis that no formal application had been submitted by the prosecution to request a gag order. He pointed out that the application was made merely through a letter, without any supporting affidavit. 'There was no formal application or affidavit filed by the prosecution to justify the gag order. Both the Sessions Courts in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Baru had ruled that a gag order was unnecessary before the prosecution sought a review in the High Court,' said Muhammad Rafique, who referred to the Papagomo case decision, where a similar gag order was set aside. Meanwhile, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee, in acknowledging that no formal application had been filed, argued that the request for a gag order was closely linked to the nature of the charges facing the appellant, which involved the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. 'The purpose of the gag order is to prevent any remarks that could disrupt public order or foster negative perceptions and prejudice against the highest institution in the country. It is not intended to infringe on the appellant's freedom of speech, but to stop him from making public comments specifically about the ongoing charges,' said Ng. — Bernama
