Opposition Leaders Decry Supreme Court Judge’s “Unwarranted” Remarks on Rahul Gandhi, Highlighting Broader Judicial Concerns

Opposition Leaders Decry Supreme Court Judge’s “Unwarranted” Remarks on Rahul Gandhi, Highlighting Broader Judicial Concerns

There are claims that many judges in India are not adequately qualified, leading them to make “random statements in courtrooms” and “preach the litigants” instead of strictly applying the law, with these “obnoxious observations” often missing from their written judgments.

RMN News Legal Desk
August 5, 2025

New Delhi – Leaders of the INDIA opposition bloc have criticized a Supreme Court judge’s observations directed at Rahul Gandhi, labeling them as “an extraordinary observation” and “unwarranted”. The remarks, made by Justice Dipankar Datta during a hearing of a criminal defamation case against the Congress leader, have ignited a debate over the judiciary’s role and the democratic rights of political parties.

The bench of Justice Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih was presiding over a case stemming from comments Mr. Gandhi made on December 16, 2022, during his ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra‘ regarding the India-China border face-off. The complaint, filed by former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) Director Uday Shankar Srivastava, alleges that Mr. Gandhi’s remarks attempted to demoralize the Army.

During the proceedings, Justice Datta questioned Mr. Gandhi’s counsel, Abhishek Singhvi, asking, “How do you get to know when 2000 sq km was acquired by China? What is the credible material? A true indian will not say this. When there is a conflict across the border, can you say all this?”.

The judge also asserted that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not permit anyone to say “just anything”. Following these remarks, the court paused further proceedings in the trial court and issued a notice to the complainant regarding Mr. Gandhi’s petition to quash the case. The Allahabad High Court had previously denied relief to Mr. Gandhi in this matter.

RELATED RMN NEWS REPORTS

[ YouTube’s Intrusive Ads Spark Consumer Rights Concerns Over Information Access ]

[ Anti-Corruption Crusader Demands Swift Action in Delhi Bureaucratic Scandal ]

In a morning meeting, INDIA bloc floor leaders unanimously agreed that Justice Datta’s comments were “unwarranted on the democratic rights of political parties”. Their statement underscored that “It is the responsibility of political parties especially the Leader of Opposition to comment on issues of national interest,” adding that when a government “fails so spectacularly to defend our borders, it is every citizen’s moral duty to hold it accountable”.

This incident has also brought into focus broader concerns regarding the state of the Indian judiciary. Sources suggest a “worrying trend“ where courts allegedly accept petitions from “mercenary unaffected petitioners” who reportedly have links with the ruling regime, with the aim of harassing political opponents, journalists, or activists. It is contended that in “autocratic regimes that work under the garb of democratic systems,” rulers silently use “complicit courts to impose their own decisions on citizens and opponents to suppress all kinds of dissent”.

Furthermore, there are claims that many judges in India are not adequately qualified, leading them to make “random statements in courtrooms” and “preach the litigants” instead of strictly applying the law, with these “obnoxious observations” often missing from their written judgments.

An evaluation of Supreme Court judgments using an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based expert system can reveal that “almost all the judgments, dismissal of petitions, or delays in decisions are either wrong or biased in favour of the ruling politicians,” with the situation being described as “worse in high courts and lower courts where judges are more corrupt and almost illiterate”.

Concerns also extend to the “bribe for bail culture,” which is described as “rampant in Indian judiciary” due to allegations of corruption and influence by the ruling regime. It is noted that “rich accused individuals easily secure bail, while the poor languish in jails without trial”.

Examples of high-profile politicians, including Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, P. Chidambaram, D.K. Shivakumar, Hemant Soren, Arvind Kejriwal, and Manish Sisodia, are cited as individuals who are currently out on bail despite facing “grave allegations,” often treating bail as a “virtual acquittal”.

These critical assessments of the Indian judiciary’s state and alleged corruption are reportedly documented in the India Judicial Research Report 2024.