A Varanasi Sessions Court set aside a magistrate court order refusing to entertain a plea against Rahul Gandhi over remarks allegedly describing Lord Ram as a “mythological figure.” The Court directed fresh consideration of the request for FIR registration, reopening examination of whether any criminal offence is disclosed.
A Varanasi District and Sessions Court set aside an earlier order of a magistrate court that had refused to entertain a plea seeking registration of a criminal case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his remarks allegedly describing Hindu deity Lord Ram as a “mythological figure.”
The order was passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge while hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the magistrate court’s decision dated May 27. The lower court had earlier dismissed the application seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR), holding that the plea was not maintainable.
Allowing the revision petition, the Sessions Court directed that the matter be reconsidered afresh by the competent court in light of legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court. The ruling effectively reopens the proceedings and requires a fresh examination of whether any criminal offence is made out on the basis of Gandhi’s remarks.
Background of the Controversy
The dispute stems from comments made by Rahul Gandhi during an interaction at Brown University in Rhode Island, United States, in April 2025, where he spoke about Indian politics, religion, and what he described as the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva politics.
During the discussion, Gandhi referred to Lord Ram while explaining values such as compassion, forgiveness, and empathy. While making his observations, he described Ram as one of India’s “mythological figures,” a remark that subsequently triggered criticism from certain groups and individuals who considered the statement offensive to Hindu religious sentiments.
During the interaction, he stated:
“I don’t know of one person who we consider great in India who wasn’t of this type…all our all our mythological figures, Lord Ram was of that type where he was forgiving, he was compassionate,”
He further added:
“So, I don’t consider what the BJP says to be the Hindu idea.”
Supporters of Gandhi argued that the statement was made in a broader philosophical discussion about compassion and forgiveness and was not intended to offend religious sentiments.
However, critics contended that referring to Lord Ram as a “mythological figure” was unacceptable because millions of Hindus regard him as a historical and divine figure rather than a character of mythology.
The comments soon became the subject of legal complaints in different parts of the country, with critics alleging that Gandhi’s remarks hurt religious sentiments and insulted followers of Sanatan Dharma.
The complaint before the Varanasi court was filed by a local advocate who alleged that Gandhi’s remarks amounted to hate speech and were intended to insult Hindu beliefs. According to the complainant, the Congress leader had repeatedly made statements that were offensive to followers of Sanatan Dharma and had undermined revered figures associated with Hindu tradition.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Citizenship Row: High Court Directs Petitioner To Add Centre As Party
After approaching the magistrate court seeking a direction for registration of an FIR, the complainant’s plea was dismissed in May on grounds of maintainability. Aggrieved by that decision, he preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court.
Arguments before the Sessions Court
The complainant argued that Gandhi’s statement regarding Lord Ram crossed the limits of legitimate political discourse and offended the religious beliefs of millions of Hindus. The complaint alleged that Gandhi had made repeated remarks concerning Hindu religious figures and traditions.
According to the complainant, Gandhi was guilty of making:
“absurd comments about the previous incarnations and great symbols of Sanatan Dharma”.
The complainant further contended that such statements amounted to an insult to followers of Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma, a term often used by many believers as synonymous with the Hindu faith and its philosophical traditions.
Referring to Gandhi’s speech, the complaint asserted:
“By delivering hate speech, they have committed a serious criminal offense”.
The complainant also argued that the remarks assumed greater significance because they concerned Lord Ram, a central figure of Hindu religious belief and worship.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi ‘Dual Citizenship’ Row: Court Reserves Verdict; Next Date Jan 28
The complainant also argued that Gandhi’s remarks were particularly objectionable in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark Ayodhya judgment delivered in 2019.
The complaint claimed that describing Lord Ram in such terms was:
“even more despicable”
Given the judicial recognition of the significance of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute and the subsequent construction of the Ram Temple.
Court’s Observation
Upon examining the challenge to the magistrate court’s order, the Additional District and Sessions Judge concluded that the matter required fresh consideration. The court therefore set aside the May 27 order and directed that the application be heard again.
While doing so, the court instructed the magistrate to examine the issues in light of relevant judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court concerning criminal complaints, free speech, and the registration of criminal proceedings.
The order does not amount to a finding that Gandhi committed any offence. Rather, it restores the complainant’s application and requires the lower court to reconsider the request in accordance with applicable legal principles.
With the matter now remanded for reconsideration, the magistrate court will determine whether the allegations disclose any offence warranting criminal proceedings against the Congress leader.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
