'Freedom is subject to limitation': Allahabad HC Rap Rahul Gandhi for 'Chinese soldiers who defeat the Indian Army' comment | Today news

The Allahabad High Court told Lok Sabha Lop and Rahul Gandhi, MP of Congress, that “Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and does not include the freedom to make statements that are defamatory to any person or defamation for the Indian army.” The Allahabad High Court rejected the plea of ​​Rahul Gandhi that challenged a summons issued by a Lucknow Court in a defamation case regarding his alleged derogatory remarks against the Indian army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra. Additional Chief Law Magistrate Alok Verma instructed Gandhi to hear on March 24 in the defamation case filed against him. Rahul challenged the Supreme Court. The complaint was filed by the Director of Retired Border Roads Organizations, Uday Shankar Srivastava, whose rank is equal to an army colonel. On December 16, 2022, he claimed the statements of Rahul Gandhi, claiming that ‘Chinese soldiers defeated Indian army staff in Arunachal Pradesh’ were derogatory and defamatory to the Indian military forces. With the rejection of Rahul Gandhi’s argument that the complainant was not an army officer and that he did not personally argue himself, the Allahabad High Court noted that a person other than the direct victim in section 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act could be regarded as a “indignant person” if he was affected by the violation. Since Srivastava expressed deep respect for the army and was personally injured by the remarks, he qualified to file the complaint. The High Court in Allahabad ruled: “The trial court has rightly arrived to call the applicant to be heard for the offense in terms of section 500 IPC after taking into account all the appropriate facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for the applicant was made.” As reported by Bar and Bench. The court further made it clear that at this preliminary stage it was unnecessary to investigate the merits of the competitive claims, as the responsibility lies with the trial court. As a result, the plea was rejected.