A Varanasi court has asked a magistrate to reconsider a plea seeking an FIR against Rahul Gandhi for his comments on Sikhs. The court said the previous order was incorrect and must be reviewed under Supreme Court guidelines.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: A sessions court in Varanasi has asked a magistrate to take another look at a rejected request for filing an FIR (First Information Report) against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
This case relates to a controversial statement allegedly made by Gandhi regarding the condition of the Sikh community in India during a visit to the United States.
The case was heard by Additional District and Sessions Judge Yajuvendra Vikram Singh.
The judge was hearing a revision petition filed by Nageshwar Mishra, who had earlier approached a lower magistrate court seeking registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi.
That earlier plea had been dismissed by the magistrate, but now the sessions court has decided to cancel that dismissal.
The judge clearly said:
“Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2025, Nageshwar Mishra & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, is allowed…The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate on Application No. 3200/2024 in the case of Nageshwar Mishra & Others vs. Rahul Gandhi is set aside…The learned Magistrate is directed to rehear the matter in light of this revision order and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and to ensure that a fresh order is passed in accordance with law.”
In simpler terms, the court has asked the magistrate to reconsider the case properly based on guidelines from the Supreme Court of India, and then take a fresh decision as per law.
According to Nageshwar Mishra’s plea filed in 2024, Gandhi had made a provocative and objectionable statement while visiting the U.S., where he allegedly said that Sikhs are feeling insecure in India. The plea claimed that this was not just a personal opinion, but a political strategy that could create tensions in society and provoke unrest.
The plea also stated that Rahul Gandhi had earlier done something similar during a Rally at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on December 14, 2019. According to Mishra, that event led to the Shaheen Bagh protests, which turned into chaos and violence.
At that time, the magistrate rejected the plea, saying that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 208, a crime that happens outside India cannot be legally investigated or tried in Indian courts without prior permission from the Central Government.
However, Mishra disagreed with that conclusion and filed a revision application in the sessions court. The sessions judge carefully analyzed the law and found a key difference.
The judge explained that the word “inquiry” in Section 208 only applies after police take official action like filing a charge sheet and framing charges. Only at that stage, government approval is needed—not before that.
The court explained the problem with the magistrate’s earlier decision like this:
“The learned Magistrate, observing that there was no mention of any portion of the speech delivered by the respondent Rahul Gandhi in Delhi, did not find the commission of any cognizable offence in that regard. However, with respect to the statement made by Rahul Gandhi in the United States, the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 was passed under the proviso to Section 208 of the BNSS,”
-the Court said while allowing the revision plea.
In short, the sessions court said the magistrate made a legal error by dismissing the plea too early, and has now asked the magistrate to go through it again properly.
Now, the magistrate must reconsider the request for FIR against Rahul Gandhi after reviewing all legal rules and judgments of the Supreme Court, and then pass a fresh, fair order based on law.
CASE TITLE:
Nageshwar Mishra & Ors v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
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 Rahul Gandhi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
