By Dr. Gyan Pathak
A citizen’s right to criticise the government is protected under the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, a Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Mahish questioned the patriotism of India’s leader of the opposition Rahul Gandhi on August 4, 2025, on his remark made during his Bharat Jodo Yatra political campaign in 2022 that India lost 2000 sq km of its land which China occupies. No doubt, it is a sensitive issue, but then in a democracy, criticism of the government is not only a right but a duty of a true citizen.
Has the Supreme Court erred in commenting “A true Indian will not say this” or “If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this” as it has been reported saying? Is not questioning his Indianness is problematic?
Is it not legally nonsense? Yes – if taken as a test of nationalism or patriotism. Let us have a look at the Constitution of India, which does not define the term “true Indian”. Every citizen in equal before law regardless of political views or criticism of the government. Judiciary’s role is to interpret law and base its judgement on the legal interpretation, and not to police patriotism. Supreme Court’s credibility rests on neutrality. Comments that suggest moral or political judgement – like calling someone a “true” or “not true” Indian are legally vague and have no constitutional basis. The Supreme Court’s comment is therefore inappropriate, possibly bereft of sense , as it has no legal weight.
Is the Supreme Court’s comment not politically or emotionally charged nonsense? Yes – if meant to shame or silence dissent. It must be noted that Rahul Gandhi’s remark, whether one agrees with it or not, was a political remark criticising the government on its failure in dealing with Chinese incursion, and was not a statement of disloyalty to India. Calling out the Army’s situation and sufferings at the hands of Chinese or the government’s mishandling of China’s incursions into Indian territory is only a part of democratic discourse, not treason or anti-India. Labelling such speech or statements “un-Indian” is dangerous rhetoric – especially coming from the country’s apex court. When we view the issue with a democratic angle, the comment of the bench crosses into subjective, emotional, and political territory –which is perhaps not the job of a court.
Was the comment then a judicial overreach? Likely yes. Of course, judges can rebuke irresponsible speech, but saying or implying “you are not a true Indian” blurs the line between law and ideology. The problem of the meaning of the phrase “true Indian” may differ if one can approach it democratic political background of the country. Now everybody knows in India that RSS-BJP’s “true Indian” is qualitatively different from any other political party’s “true Indian”. People have also different views on their standard of “true Indian.” One can’t understand what the Supreme Court implied when it said “true Indian”. It is vague. When we see the issue in view of judicial ethics, such a comment by the apex court bench can potentially damage judicial impartiality. In this sense, such a comment is not only vague and nonsense but also a bad precedent.
Is calling the comment nonsense is disrespect to the bench, or the apex court, or the judiciary? Certainly not, because it is only a critique of a poorly chosen remark of a court, not more than that, because judges are expected to be neutral arbiters of the law. The comment is nonsense in constitution, legal, and democratic terms. It is morally judgmental, legally irrelevant, and institutionally harmful. It is good that in spite of the comment our honourable judges stayed the proceedings of defamation against Rahul Gandhi and issues notices to the parties involved in the case.
When a Supreme Court questions patriotism of a citizen who is currently the Leader of the Opposition of the country instead of legality it steps from the courtroom into the campaign trail – where reason gives way to rhetoric. Questioning patriotism by a bench instead of the points of law, it risked crossing from judicial impartiality into political rhetoric in such a way that is undermining both justice and democratic discourse.
This comment, coming from the apex court, is deeply troubling for several other reasons. First among them is that it is factually flawed when the court questioned Rahul Gandhi, “How do you know when 2000 sq km was acquired by China? What is the credible material? The questions have certain airs when it is read with the “true Indian” remark.
Therefore, we need to known from where 2000 sq km came from, which is apart from officially acknowledge Indian land measuring 43,180 sq km under the possession of China, which included 5180 sq km ceded by Pakistan to China. The 2000 km under question came from multiple reliable sources, including Indian security agencies, retired military officials, and investigative reports, that have confirmed that since June 2020 China-India clashes, India has lost access to the territory in Eastern Ladakh. This land has not been formally ceded, but Indian patrols have been denied access, buffer zones have expanded, and on-ground Chinese control has solidified. Independent reports and internal assessments by Ladakh Police even acknowledged loss of patrolling rights at 26 out of 65 patrol points, indirectly confirming what Gandhi pointed out.
Therefore, Rahul Gandhi’s remarks were not made in a vacuum. They were grounded in this ongoing reality, voiced on behalf of concerned citizens and servicemen who see the government’s silence and ambiguity as a grave failure. Since the Galwan clash in 2020, public discourse around land loss and the establishment of new buffer zones has grown sharper, particularly because these zones exist within India-claimed territory. Gandhi’s warning was an attempt to bring transparency and national attention to a subject that has been shrouded in diplomatic silence of the government of India led by PM Narendra Modi.
To conflate this act of public accountability with a lack of patriotism is to weaponize nationalism against a perceived truth among the people. In fact, democratic societies thrive on the ability of their citizens—especially elected representatives—to question authority. When a parliamentarian raises valid concerns about national security, dismissing them on emotional or moralistic grounds, especially from the judiciary, sets a dangerous precedent.
The question posed by the Supreme Court Bench as to why Rahul Gandhi raised the question in social media post and not in parliament? …Why can’t you ask the question in parliament? Such questions put pressure on a Leader of the Opposition of the country which is preventive in psychological impact. The right of the Leader of the Opposition must be respected, because he has right to raise the issue concerning the nation in public political campaign, in social media, in the parliament, or in any other places of his choice. He has right to criticize the government both inside and outside the parliament.
Just because you have Article 19(1)(a) you cannot say anything, the Bench had observed. It is another pressure on the Leader of the Opposition. The role of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and adjudicate on matters of law, not to define who is or isn’t a “true Indian.” There is no constitutional test of patriotism. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The moment this is interpreted through the lens of nationalism, we risk legitimizing a subjective moral code in place of law. It is risky in the backdrop of RSS-BJP’s continued effort of imposing their subjective moral code on the people of India, and their moral codes sometimes are just opposite to the values enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Such remarks from the bench risk eroding public confidence in the court’s impartiality. At a time when the line between political power and institutional independence is already under strain, this kind of rhetoric blurs the boundaries further. Courts are meant to be temples of justice, not arenas for ideological rebuke. Their legitimacy is not rooted in nationalist sentiment but in their commitment to the rule of law and constitutional principles.
Furthermore, history teaches us that questioning those in power—especially during times of external threat—is not anti-national, but often the highest form of patriotism. Mahatma Gandhi questioned the British empire. Leaders of India’s independence movement questioned war strategies and imperial policies during global conflict. Are we now to believe that patriotism is defined solely by silence of the government in the face of uncomfortable facts?
Let us be clear: Rahul Gandhi may be a political figure, and the Leader of the Opposition, but his right to question the government—even on sensitive matters like national security—is protected under the Constitution. Dismissing that right through rhetorical patriotism does a disservice to both democracy and truth. As facts stand today, Gandhi’s 2,000 square kilometer figure is not without basis—it aligns with ground-level military realities and internal security assessments.
The real danger is not in asking uncomfortable questions, but in silencing those who dare to ask them. And when the highest court chooses the latter path, it is not Rahul Gandhi who needs to be reminded of what it means to be a “true Indian.” Rather, we must ask whether the judiciary is living up to its constitutional role—or drifting toward the politics it is sworn to rise above. (IPA Service)
