Legal

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Rahul Gandhi’s Plea In Sikh Remark Case

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Special MP/MLA Court in Varanasi.

Justice Sameer Jain delivered the order after reserving the verdict earlier. Gandhi, who represents Rae Bareli in the Lok Sabha and serves as Leader of Opposition, had approached the High Court against the special court’s decision.

Case Linked to Alleged Remarks in the US

The case stems from Rahul Gandhi’s alleged remarks during a September 2024 event in the United States, where he reportedly questioned whether Sikhs in India could freely wear turbans, carry the kirpan, and visit gurdwaras.

Complainant Nageshwar Mishra claimed the remarks were inflammatory and divisive, and filed a complaint at the Sarnath police station seeking registration of an FIR.

When police did not file an FIR, Mishra approached a judicial magistrate in Varanasi. The magistrate dismissed the plea, ruling that it was not maintainable without prior sanction from the central government.

Mishra then filed a revision before the Special MP/MLA Court, which partly allowed the plea, set aside the magistrate’s order, and directed reconsideration of the complaint. Gandhi subsequently challenged this decision in the High Court.

Rahul Gandhi’s Counsel Argues Case Is Baseless

Senior advocate Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, representing Gandhi, argued that the charges were baseless and lacked specific details such as the date of the alleged incident.

He maintained that the application was filed on the basis of media reports and that no criminal case could be made out against Gandhi. He contended that the special court erred by overturning the magistrate’s order without considering legal precedents or the validity of the complaint.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, defended the special court’s order. He argued that the court had only asked the magistrate to reconsider the complaint on its merits.

He emphasised that the police had not filed any FIR and that filing the petition before the High Court was premature. Goyal said the magistrate must decide whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and whether to order an investigation.

Counsel for the complainant, Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, argued that Gandhi’s remarks were capable of inciting communal disharmony and required proper investigation. He maintained that the revision petition was not maintainable since the special court had merely issued an interim order.

Goyal further pointed out that Gandhi’s remarks were made outside India, and while they reflected opposition views, Gandhi had not denied making them. He said the truth of the remarks and their intent would emerge during the investigation, making the special court’s order legally valid.

Also Read: Patiala House Court Reserves Order On Baba Chaitanyanand Saraswati’s Anticipatory Bail Plea

Vishal Talwar