NEW DELHI: Rahul Gandhi, the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, got a rap on his knuckles on Monday from the Supreme Court for his 2022 statement – Chinese are “thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh” – while criticising the government for its handling of the Galwan Valley clash at the LAC. “If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this,” the apex court told him.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih lambasted Rahul for making allegations that China captured 2,000 sq km of Indian territory and asked him whether he was present there. It made it clear to him that as leader of opposition he cannot go on saying whatever he wants.Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, defended him saying, “if he cannot say these things which are published in the Press, he cannot be a leader of opposition”. However, he agreed that the statement could have been worded better.SC’s censure came during the hearing on Rahul’s plea for staying a defamation case filed against him over his claim about Indian jawans having been walloped by the Chinese during the Galwan standoff. After the hearing, the court stayed the defamation proceedings against him but not before giving him an earful.Were you there on the border?“Tell, Dr Singhvi, how do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory was occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without any…If you were a true Indian, you would not say all this if there is a conflict at the border,” the bench said.The senior advocate responded by saying that it was also possible that a true Indian would say that 20 Indian soldiers were beaten up and killed as it was a matter of concern for the country.Singhvi argued that while some people may not agree with the statement, it was not prohibited under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which pertains to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. He underscored that public interest was involved in the issue and it would be unfortunate if a leader of opposition could not raise and highlight such an issue.“Whatever you have to say, why don’t you say it in Parliament? Why do you have to say this in social media posts?” the bench asked.Challenging the defamation case proceedings, Singhvi said it was done to harass Rahul, and he also pointed out that the trial court did not follow section 223 of BNSS which said prior hearing of the accused was mandatory before taking cognisance of a criminal complaint. The court, thereafter, issued notice on Rahul’s plea and stayed the proceeding in the case, despite senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the complainant, opposing the stay order. The bench asked him to file a response.Rahul moved SC after the Allahabad high court on May 29 rejected his plea for quashing of summoning order passed in Feb by a court in Lucknow. The HC observed that freedom of speech and expression did not include the freedom to make statements which defame the Indian Army. The complaint was filed by former Border Roads Organisation (BRO) director Uday Shankar Srivastava against Rahul for making the allegedly derogatory remarks in Dec 2022 during his Bharat Jodo Yatra.“People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot and what-not. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2,000 sqkm of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian Press doesn’t ask a question to them about this. Isn’t it true? The nation is watching all this. Don’t pretend that people don’t know,” Rahul had said at a press conference during the yatra.