Army Failures at Center of Debate After Supreme Court Censure of Rahul Gandhi

Army Failures at Center of Debate After Supreme Court Censure of Rahul Gandhi

RMN News Report Highlights:

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | August 5, 2025

NEW DELHI – Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has publicly defended her brother, Rahul Gandhi, following the Supreme Court’s strong rebuke of his comments on the Indian Army. In a statement on Tuesday (August 5), Ms. Gandhi declared that it is not the place of the top court’s judges to decide who is a “true Indian.”

The controversy erupted after a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, while staying proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi, issued a stinging observation: “if he is a true Indian, he would not say such a thing.” The case, stemming from remarks made during the December 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, was initiated by former Border Roads Organisation Director Uday Shankar Srivastava, who alleged that Rahul Gandhi’s statements sought to demoralize the armed forces.

The court questioned Mr. Gandhi’s counsel, Abhishek Singhvi, on the basis of claims that China had acquired 2,000 sq km of Indian territory. Justice Datta also asserted that the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not permit one to say “just anything.”

In her defense of Rahul Gandhi who is the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Priyanka Gandhi affirmed that her brother holds the “highest respect for the Army” and would never speak against it. She underscored that it is Rahul Gandhi’s duty to question the government, particularly when it comes to national interest issues.

The Supreme Court’s remarks have intensified a broader debate over the Indian military’s performance and the country’s political climate. Critics point to the Indian Army’s repeated failures to protect Indian land from Chinese annexation and to curb terror attacks, especially in the Kashmir region. They argue that most Indian politicians are afraid to explicitly speak out about these Army failures, fearing backlash from the ruling Modi regime. The government, according to critics, fosters an environment of hyper-nationalism where those who criticize the military are labeled “anti-national.”

Sources suggest this fear is rooted in the belief that an anti-army stance could alienate Hindu nationalist voters, who form a large majority. This political pressure, critics claim, leads to a suppression of truth, including about the Indian Army’s failures. They allege the army operates as a defunct force and enjoys impunity under the colonial-era Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA).

Leaders of the INDIA opposition bloc also weighed in, criticizing the judge’s comments as “unwarranted on the democratic rights of political parties.” In a joint statement, they emphasized that it is the “moral duty” of every citizen, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to hold the government accountable when it “fails so spectacularly to defend our borders.”

The judicial observations have also led to a critique of the judiciary itself. Sources claim that many judges are not adequately qualified, leading them to make “random statements in courtrooms” and “preach the litigants” instead of strictly applying the law. They note that these “obnoxious observations” are often absent from the judges’ written judgments. An evaluation of Supreme Court judgments using an AI-based expert system, they argue, would show that “almost all the judgments, dismissal of petitions, or delays in decisions are either wrong or biased in favour of the ruling politicians.”