Priyanka Gandhi on SC's rap to Rahul over his China remarks: ‘Judges don’t decide who…' | Watch

COngress MP Priyanka mrs. Indira nehru gandhi has defended her comrade and Leader of oppositeness Rahul Gandhi against the sublime Court's recent criticism of his comments about China's reported incursions and the Indian Army's response.“With due respect to the honourable judges, they do not decide who a true Indian is," Priyanka Gandhi said as she arrived at Parliament on Tuesday, PTI reported. It was an apparent retort to the Supreme Court's remark on Rahul that made headlines on Monday, that “a true Indian will not say all this".She said it is a the duty of Opposition leader to question the government. "My brother would never speak against the army, he holds them in the highest respect. It is a misinterpretation."Further backing Rahul, leaders of the INDIA bloc called the SC's observation “unwarranted”, according to Congress social media head Supriya Shrinate.“When a government fails so spectacularly to defend our borders, it is every citizen’s moral duty to hold it accountable,” she posted on X.What Supreme Court said on Rahul Gandhi's remarksThe top court was on Monday hearing a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over on his remarks about the Indian Army during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in December 2022, when it made it made some scathing observations. Particularly on his comments that the Chinese army had “captured 2,000 sq km of Indian territory", “killed 20 Indian soldiers", and “thrashed our jawans in Arunachal Pradesh", the SC bench observed, “Why do you have to say this in media or social media posts? Were you there? How did you get to know that 2,000 square kilometres has been captured?”Rahul Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was present before the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, argued that Rahul retains the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The remark was made to prompt the media to raise uncomfortable but necessary questions about national security, he said.The court, however, said that such statements must be made, if at all, in Parliament, not in the media.The court did, however, halt the criminal proceedings against him in the matter in the trial court. It agreed to examine some legal issues, such as the summons having been issued without giving Rahul a hearing; and the objection that the complainant could not be considered an “aggrieved” person here for alleged defamation of the army. The complainant is Uday Shankar Srivastava, a retired director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO).