Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reaffirmed the principle of judicial equality after BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia alleged that Rahul Gandhi was receiving preferential treatment in a defamation case regarding the Galwan clash.
- CJI Surya Kant asserted that the Supreme Court treats all litigants equally, regardless of their status.
- BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia alleged 'dilatory tactics' and 'VVIP treatment' for Rahul Gandhi.
- The case stems from alleged remarks made by Gandhi regarding the 2020 Galwan border clash.
In a pointed exchange on Wednesday (September 9, 2026), Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant assured the legal fraternity and the public that "all parties are treated equally" within the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court. This statement came as a direct response to allegations made by senior advocate and BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for a complainant in a defamation suit against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The tension escalated during an oral mentioning by Mr. Bhatia, who sought to 'de-tag' Mr. Gandhi’s plea. The plea in question challenges criminal proceedings initiated over alleged remarks made by the Opposition leader concerning the Indian Army and the Chinese offensive during the 2020 Galwan Valley border clash.
Mr. Bhatia raised concerns over the scheduling of the case, noting that it had not been listed since December of the previous year. He pointed out that while the court had scheduled the next hearing for April 22, 2026, the matter remained off the cause list until September 9. He explicitly alleged that the delay was due to the identity of the "person mentioned" and argued that Mr. Gandhi should not be treated as a "VVIP".
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this incident underscores a growing trend where political narratives are being aggressively litigated in the Supreme Court. By accusing the court of granting VVIP treatment, the petitioners are not just fighting a legal battle but are attempting to frame a public discourse on accountability. The CJI's swift clarification is crucial to preserving the perceived impartiality of the judiciary amidst extreme political polarization.
"The integrity of the judicial process relies on the absolute absence of privilege; any perception of bias can undermine the rule of law."
Representing Mr. Gandhi, advocate Prasanna S. vehemently objected to these claims, suggesting that such accusations against the court's integrity should not be entertained during proceedings. In response to the friction, CJI Kant firmly stated, "All parties are treated equally here," and subsequently advised Mr. Bhatia to file a formal application for the de-tagging of the case.
Historical Background: The legal saga began in August 2023 when Uday Shankar Shrivastava, a retired officer of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), filed a complaint before a Lucknow Magistrate court. The Lucknow court issued summons to Rahul Gandhi in February 2025. After the Allahabad High Court refused to quash these summons in May 2025, Mr. Gandhi approached the apex court via a special leave petition (SLP).
| Legal Stage | Action Taken | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Complaint | Filed by BRO officer in Lucknow | August 2023 |
| Court Summons | Issued by Magistrate Court | February 2025 |
| High Court Appeal | Allahabad HC declined to quash | May 2025 |
| Supreme Court | SLP filed and currently pending | 2025-2026 |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why was the case against Rahul Gandhi filed?
The case was initiated by a retired BRO officer over alleged remarks made by Rahul Gandhi regarding the 2020 Galwan border clash and the Indian Army.
The CJI dismissed the notion of VVIP treatment and directed the petitioner to submit a formal application for de-tagging the case.