Rahul Gandhi

The ED questioned Rahul Gandhi and pursued a money laundering theory linked to transactions involving Associated Journals Ltd and Young Indian. The PMLA complaint encountered a procedural obstacle at first instance, after which the ED appealed.

State of the evidence

ED questioning, PMLA complaint, refusal to take cognisance and appeal documented

Legal status — source text

a special court declined to take cognisance of the ED complaint in December 2025; ED appeal still pending in 2026; no conviction

Attribution

Rahul Gandhi is directly implicated as a major shareholder of Young Indian and Congress leader

Proceedings initiated by a BJP politician sought to have federal agencies examine allegations of disproportionate assets. Gandhi challenged the proceedings, and the Supreme Court halted their progression at this stage.

State of the evidence

complaint and court orders documented; allegation not established

Legal status — source text

in August 2026, the Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court not to proceed with the case at this stage

Attribution

Rahul Gandhi personally targeted by the allegation, without any finding of unlawful assets

Remarks by Gandhi about V. D. Savarkar during the Bharat Jodo Yatra gave rise to a criminal complaint in Lucknow. Having previously warned him about the content of such remarks, the Supreme Court ultimately quashed the proceedings for lack of the legally required prior sanction.

State of the evidence

remarks, summons and judicial decisions documented

Legal status — source text

proceedings and summons quashed on 14 August 2026 for lack of required prior sanction

Attribution

personal responsibility for the disputed remarks; no criminal liability upheld in these proceedings

Satyaki Savarkar initiated separate proceedings in Pune concerning Rahul Gandhi's remarks in London about V. D. Savarkar. The case continued to involve disputes over digital evidence and historical petitions.

State of the evidence

complaint and hearings documented

Legal status — source text

separate proceedings before a Pune court still ongoing in sources verified in 2026

Attribution

personal responsibility for remarks attributed to Gandhi in London

A BJP official sued Rahul Gandhi for describing Amit Shah as a "murder accused" during a 2018 speech, although Shah had been discharged several years earlier in the Sohrabuddin case. Gandhi appeared in court and obtained bail.

State of the evidence

complaint, court appearances, bail and hearings documented

Legal status — source text

case still pending; as at 21 August 2026, the next hearing was scheduled for 3 September

Attribution

personal responsibility for remarks made during the Karnataka campaign

A complaint was filed after Rahul Gandhi attributed responsibility for Mahatma Gandhi's assassination to the RSS in a campaign speech. The Bhiwandi case has involved numerous procedural challenges.

State of the evidence

complaint and lengthy proceedings documented

Legal status — source text

criminal defamation proceedings initiated following a 2014 speech; no final conviction identified

Attribution

personal responsibility for the disputed wording

At the inauguration of Congress headquarters, Gandhi stated that his party was fighting the BJP, the RSS and "the Indian State itself". An FIR was registered in Guwahati under provisions concerning sovereignty and integrity.

State of the evidence

Assam FIR and decisions in parallel proceedings documented

Legal status — source text

FIR registered in Guwahati; in May 2026, the Allahabad High Court rejected another application seeking registration of an FIR over the same speech

Attribution

personal responsibility for the speech; criminal classification disputed

During the 2018 campaign, Gandhi mistakenly named Shivraj Singh Chouhan's son in a reference to the Panama Papers. He explained that he had meant to refer to the son of a former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and expressed regret in writing.

State of the evidence

remarks, complaint, written expression of regret and judicial closure documented

Legal status — source text

Madhya Pradesh High Court closed the proceedings on 25 June 2026 after the complainant accepted the expression of regret

Attribution

personal responsibility for mistakenly naming Kartikeya Singh Chouhan

Following a visit to Boolgarhi in December 2024, Gandhi was accused of referring to three men as though they were still accused despite their acquittal on the rape charge. The first judge refused to summon him, but a reviewing court admitted the challenge.

State of the evidence

complaint, initial dismissal, admission of review and notification documented

Legal status — source text

complaint dismissed in May 2026; review subsequently admitted; next hearing announced for 19 September 2026

Attribution

personal responsibility for describing acquitted men as "accused"

Role of the person profiled

Protagonist is the victim

A complaint targeted Gandhi over remarks concerning the confrontation with China and alleged occupation of Indian territory. The Supreme Court sharply criticised his wording and asked what credible evidence supported it, while staying the criminal proceedings.

State of the evidence

complaint, High Court decisions and Supreme Court stay documented

Legal status — source text

Supreme Court stayed proceedings in August 2025; no conviction

Attribution

personal responsibility for the disputed remarks

In the United States, Gandhi discussed whether Sikhs could freely wear a turban and kada in India. The BJP accused him of promoting a dangerous narrative, and an FIR was filed in Varanasi for allegedly undermining the country's integrity.

State of the evidence

remarks and FIR documented

Legal status — source text

FIR registered under section 152 BNS; no conviction identified

Attribution

personal responsibility for public remarks

In his first major speech as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Gandhi accused the BJP and RSS of invoking religion while speaking of violence, prompting strong objections from Narendra Modi and the BJP. Several passages were removed from the official record.

State of the evidence

speech, objections and expunging of passages from the record documented

Legal status — source text

no personal criminal proceedings established; parliamentary decision to expunge several passages

Attribution

personal responsibility for the speech

Twitter temporarily locked Rahul Gandhi's account after he published a photograph with the family of a girl who had been raped and murdered, with the NCPCR considering that the content revealed her identity. His 2024 electoral affidavit also declared a case involving, among other provisions, the POCSO Act.

State of the evidence

tweet removal, NCPCR intervention and electoral declaration of a case documented

Legal status — source text

no conviction declared; case listed among pending matters in the 2024 electoral affidavit

Attribution

personal responsibility for publishing the disputed photograph

A Surat court sentenced Rahul Gandhi to two years' imprisonment for a 2019 remark about the name "Modi", resulting in his disqualification from Parliament. The Supreme Court stayed the conviction, citing among other reasons the lack of justification for the maximum sentence.

State of the evidence

first-instance conviction and stay documented

Legal status — source text

sentenced to two years in March 2023; conviction stayed by Supreme Court in August 2023; no final acquittal identified

Attribution

personal responsibility for the disputed campaign statement

Women BJP MPs accused Gandhi of blowing a "flying kiss" as he left the Lok Sabha during the no-confidence debate, describing the gesture as misogynistic.

State of the evidence

parliamentary allegations and opposing accounts documented

Legal status — source text

no conviction or criminal proceedings identified

Attribution

alleged personal gesture; interpretation disputed

MRT Music accused Congress of using KGF-2 music without permission in a Bharat Jodo Yatra video. A civil court had temporarily ordered accounts to be blocked, and the High Court subsequently refused to quash the FIR.

State of the evidence

FIR, civil injunction and High Court decision documented

Legal status — source text

Karnataka High Court refused to quash the FIR in June 2023; no conviction identified

Attribution

Rahul Gandhi was personally named alongside other Congress leaders

During the Rafale controversy, Gandhi presented a Supreme Court decision as validating his political slogan against Narendra Modi. The Court initiated contempt proceedings, and Gandhi tendered an unconditional apology.

State of the evidence

contempt proceedings and apology documented

Legal status — source text

Supreme Court closed the proceedings in November 2019 following an apology, while warning him

Attribution

personal responsibility for attributing wording to the Court that it had not used

Rahul Gandhi accused Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, where Amit Shah had been a director, of having received exceptionally high deposits of demonetised banknotes. The bank and an executive initiated defamation proceedings.

State of the evidence

complaint documented

Legal status — source text

defamation proceedings initiated; no final conviction identified

Attribution

personal responsibility for public allegations

Rahul Gandhi's remarks accusing the government and private interests of irregularities in the Rafale contract prompted defamation proceedings in Mumbai linked to Reliance.

State of the evidence

civil or criminal proceedings reported in the press

Legal status — source text

litigation documented; no final conviction identified during the verification review

Attribution

personal responsibility for allegations concerning the Rafale contract

Following journalist Gauri Lankesh's murder, Rahul Gandhi made remarks linking RSS ideology to the climate surrounding the killing, leading to defamation proceedings.

State of the evidence

remarks and proceedings documented

Legal status — source text

criminal defamation complaint documented; no final conviction identified

Attribution

personal responsibility for public remarks