The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL against Robert Vadra over his alleged hate speech but gave permission to the petitioner to take legal action through proper channels. The court emphasized following criminal law procedures first.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against Robert Vadra—husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra—was recently disposed of by the Allahabad High Court.
The petition had demanded a Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into Vadra’s alleged remarks made after the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 people.
The PIL was filed by senior advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, representing the organisation Hindu Front for Justice. The plea claimed that Vadra’s alleged comments created fear among Hindus and violated multiple legal sections, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The petition asked the court to take strict legal action, stating:
“A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite party No. 1 to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an independent, credible and impartial investigation regarding the hate speech given by opposite party no. 3, against the members of the Hindu Community on 23.04.2025 through various media channels, regarding the brutal terror attack after separating the Hindu’s from the rest and brutally shooting and killing only the Hindu’s, to find out the root cause and the elements behind such poisonous, separatist and insensitive statement made by the opposite party no. 3.”
The petitioner also asked for action under criminal law:
“A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite party No. 1 and 2 to take appropriate actions against the Opposite Party No. 3 in light of his violations of sections 299, 152 and 302 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 295A and 298 IPC).”
She requested further relief:
“Any other suitable order may also be passed that this Hon’ble Court may deem to be necessary in the interest of Justice.”
And also demanded:
“Cost of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
During the hearing, the bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Justice Om Prakash Shukla questioned the petitioner on whether she had filed a police complaint or FIR regarding the alleged offence. Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri admitted that no FIR or complaint had been filed before moving to court.
Based on this, the High Court refused to move forward with the case at this stage. The bench clarified that if a crime has occurred, there are already legal ways to report and investigate it under existing laws.
The court stated:
“We see no reason to proceed any further in the matter, as if there exists any cause of action for proceeding under the criminal law, the recourse can be taken to the remedy prescribed under the said law. If there is a cause under the civil law, then the petitioner can take recourse to the remedies prescribed therein.”
Finally, the PIL was dismissed, but the court left the door open for the petitioner to take legal action through proper channels.
The court clearly said:
“The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty as far as it may be permissible in law.”
This means the petitioner is free to file a police case or approach appropriate legal forums, as allowed by the law.
BACKGROUND
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law and businessman Robert Vadra on Wednesday (April 23, 2025) triggered a row by suggesting that:
“Non-Muslims were attacked in Pahalgam as terrorists feel Muslims are being ‘mistreated’ in the country”
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accusing him of using the ‘language of terrorists’ and demanded that he should apologise.
Mr. Vadra condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack and said that whenever there are communal issues and people feel vulnerable, there is division in the country and neighbouring countries benefit from it. He said it is time to separate politics and religion, and political parties should introspect.
“When this terrorist act took place, they [terrorists] were looking at IDs, people who were non-Muslims were attacked and messages were given to the Prime Minister. Why is this happening? Because, they are feeling that Muslims are being mistreated in our country,”
-Mr. Vadra said.
He, however, clarified that it was his personal view and he was not speaking on behalf of the Congress party or his family.
“As is said terrorism does not look at any kind of religion. But… I feel that whenever in a country there are communal issues, people feel vulnerable. There is a division and we see that in our country.”
“I see that the minorities are sidelined. When they are praying, they are not allowed to do so on their roofs. If they are in abundance praying on a Thursday [April 24] or Friday [April 25] and there is a spillover on the road, they are stopped…there are surveys of mosques,”
-he told PTI videos.
Mr. Vadra said he was summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) when he last spoke for minorities but he will continue to raise his voice whenever any wrong happens.
“Why is it that one religion can celebrate their Gods and beliefs on the roads and we all have to adhere to them and when the Muslims are praying for their Gods, they are stopped?…. If we are not united, we are going to be vulnerable and any bordering country will take advantage of this,”
-Mr. Vadra, who is the husband of Congress’ Wayanad Member of Parliament (MP) Priyanka Gandhi, said.
“It is time we need to unite and we need to separate politics and religion. Religion-based politics will always cause division and separation and no progress. The political parties need to introspect. When I say this, these are my thoughts and it is not the thought of the Congress party or my family,”
-he added.
Case Title:
Hindu Front for Justice Thru. President Ranjana Agnihotri Advocate And Others
Vs.
Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi And Others
Case Number:
Writ – C No. 4111 of 2025
Neutral Citation:
2025:AHC-LKO:25675-DB
BENCH:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Roy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for Petitioner: Ranjana Agnihotri (In Person)
Counsel for Respondents: A.S.G.I. (Assistant Solicitor General of India), C.S.C. (Chief Standing Counsel)
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Pahalgam Attack
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
