The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday stated “everyone seems to be equal” earlier than it and requested the complainant in a prison defamation case in opposition to the chief of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi to observe the prescribed process if he needed an early listening to, after his lawyer alleged that the courtroom registry was treating the Congress chief as a “VVIP”.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, made the statement after senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, showing for former Border Roads Organisation director Uday Shankar Srivastava, complained that Gandhi’s enchantment had not been listed regardless of an earlier judicial path to listen to it.
“He isn’t a VVIP. The matter was listed 5 months in the past additionally and was not taken up. This doesn’t augur properly for the establishment as properly,” stated Bhatia, referring to the courtroom’s December 2025 order directing that the matter be listed on April 22.
Additionally Learn:HC dismisses Rahul Gandhi’s plea to quash defamation case over ‘commander in-thief’ remark
The bench, nonetheless, requested him to maneuver an utility searching for an early listening to. “Allow us to observe the process. File an utility searching for early listening to…Everyone seems to be equal earlier than us. Please file an utility for early listening to. We’ll take it up,” stated the bench.
The trade got here in Gandhi’s enchantment in opposition to an Allahabad excessive courtroom order refusing to quash the prison defamation proceedings arising from his remarks throughout the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022 concerning the conflict between Indian and Chinese language troops in Arunachal Pradesh.
The case had earlier come earlier than a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, which on August 4, 2025 stayed additional proceedings. That bench questioned Gandhi concerning the foundation for his declare that Chinese language troops captured 2,000sq km of Indian territory and in addition noticed that such points involving a border battle must be raised in Parliament.
Gandhi stated he was exercising his proper to free speech and searching for to attract public consideration to points that, in his view, weren’t being adequately raised.
Additionally Learn:‘Savarkar never hated Muslims’: Grand-nephew in Rahul Gandhi defamation case
The complainant, Srivastava, approached a Lucknow courtroom alleging that Gandhi’s remarks had been defamatory of the Indian Military. He served as director of the Border Roads Organisation, a place he claimed was equal in rank to a Colonel within the Military.
The Lucknow courtroom subsequently summoned Gandhi. In Might 2025, the Allahabad excessive courtroom declined to intrude, holding that Srivastava may preserve the criticism as an “aggrieved particular person” below part 199 of the Code of Prison Process (CrPC).
Gandhi then moved the Supreme Courtroom. In December, the matter was directed to be listed for last listening to on April 22, 2026, together with a separate defamation matter involving The Wire. The case, nonetheless, was not taken up.
Through the Wednesday listening to, Bhatia contended that his case was wrongly tagged with petitions filed by The Wire and that the courtroom must order de-tagging his case.
“The regulation is well-settled in as far as my case is anxious. I can’t fathom why my case was listed with the opposite case. There isn’t a believable cause. I’m requesting this courtroom to de-tag my matter and order its itemizing as per earlier courtroom orders. The registry can’t listing this matter simply because they assume Mr Gandhi is a VVIP and that he has already acquired a keep,” Bhatia argued.
Responding, the bench requested Bhatia to invoke the mechanism out there for searching for an early listening to and de-tagging the case.
Gandhi’s petition within the high courtroom claimed that already he’s going through over 20 circumstances in speech associated offences. “These proceedings are nothing however lawfare – a transparent abuse of the method of regulation in furtherance of wielding the heckler’s veto to muzzle and silence the petitioner from articulating his opposition to the ruling authorities’s insurance policies and positions,” said the enchantment.
His plea additionally urged the courtroom to contemplate the authorized questions raised within the petition. He referred to part 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita (BNSS), 2023 which requires the Justice of the Peace to listen to the accused earlier than taking cognisance of an offence.
In the meantime, Srivastava, in his criticism, alleged that the assertion made by Gandhi in 2022 is fake and baseless and was given with an evil intention of demoralising the Indian Military. He identified that opposite to what was said by the Congress chief, a scuffle befell in Yangsi area Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022, following which the Indian Military efficiently restrained the Chinese language Military from getting into the territory protected by it and badly chased them away. He cited the official assertion issued by the Military on this regard.
The complainant additional said that the assertion has been made by Gandhi “knowingly and mischievously” below a “conspiracy to trigger an adversarial impact on nationwide integrity and unity of the Indian Military” as the identical was broadly printed by the newspapers.