The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that all parties are treated equally in a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, rejecting claims that the court was giving him preferential treatment. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, told the complainant’s counsel that the court would not intervene in the matter unless an application for early hearing was filed.

Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing complainant Udai Shankar Srivastava, had argued that the case against Gandhi had not been listed for hearing despite a judicial order to do so. Bhatia claimed that the matter was not being taken up because Gandhi was being treated as a 'VVIP' (Very Very Important Person), a term he used to suggest that the court was giving him special consideration. The bench responded by instructing Bhatia to file an application seeking an early hearing, emphasizing that all parties must follow the same procedural steps.

The case stems from allegations that Gandhi made derogatory remarks against the Indian Army during his 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, which took place in the wake of clashes between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. The complainant, Srivastava, who previously served as director of the Border Roads Organisation, alleged that Gandhi’s statements were false and aimed at demoralizing the Indian Army. The Lucknow trial court summoned Gandhi as an accused, but he denied the allegations, arguing that the trial court had not properly examined the facts.

The Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s plea to quash the criminal defamation proceedings, holding that Srivastava could maintain the complaint as an 'aggrieved person' under section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Gandhi then moved the Supreme Court, which had listed the case for hearing on April 22, 2026, along with a separate defamation matter involving The Wire. However, the case was not taken up, prompting Bhatia to request de-tagging and an earlier hearing.

The Supreme Court did not provide a clear response to Bhatia’s request, instead directing him to follow the procedural mechanism for seeking an early hearing. The court also noted that Gandhi was facing over 20 cases related to speech offenses, which he claimed were part of a 'lawfare' strategy to silence opposition.

The exact nature of Gandhi’s alleged remarks and the court’s final ruling on the matter remain unclear. The case highlights ongoing tensions between free speech and defamation laws in India, with the Supreme Court emphasizing procedural fairness while deferring to lower courts on substantive legal questions. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how political speech is treated under Indian law.