Sikh Remarks Row | Didn't Incite Sikhs To Rise In Rebellion; Intent Can't Be Inferred From Stray Sentence: Rahul Gandhi Submits In Allahabad HC
Challenging an order of the Varanasi Court directing a re-hearing of a plea seeking registration of an FIR against him over his alleged remarks on Sikhs, Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, today submitted before the Allahabad High Court that he had not incited the Sikh community to rise in rebellion and that his entire speech was not considered by the Court to...
Challenging an order of the Varanasi Court directing a re-hearing of a plea seeking registration of an FIR against him over his alleged remarks on Sikhs, Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, today submitted before the Allahabad High Court that he had not incited the Sikh community to rise in rebellion and that his entire speech was not considered by the Court to gather his intent.
Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi (appearing for Gandhi) submitted before a bench of Justice Sameer Jain that the intention, whether Gandhi wanted to wage war against the government, can't be deciphered from some stray sentence, which is a part of the speech.
He added that even the Supreme Court says that one stray sentence here and there cannot be considered.
"What I said before this, what I said after this, is not mentioned...Based on 25 words, mens rea can't be seen...Unless the entire speech is before the court, the intention cannot be attributed", he argued.
He also argued that the Sessions Court had not taken into account the points argued by Gandhi's counsel and that the order impugned was confined to Section 208 BNSS instead of addressing the threshold argument as to whether a cognizable offence was made out or not.
"It was the Sessions Judge's duty to record findings on the arguments made before it. The approach is perverse", he submitted as it sought that the matter be remanded back to the Sessions court to decide it in toto from the beginning
Chaturvedi also submitted that Gandhi had not targeted any specific government and that it can't be said that he attempted to wage a war by giving the alleged speech against the Government, as he had neither "taken the side of Pakistan or the terrorists".
"Even muslims are also questioning their religious freedom...which future is he talking about? He is not talking about 2029, the Modi government or any specific government", Chaturvedi said.
Background of the matter
An Addl. District & Sessions Court in Varanasi in July set aside a Magistrate Court's order that had dismissed a plea seeking registration of FIR against Congress leader and LoP in LokSabha Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks on Sikhs made during his US trip in September 2024.
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Yajuvendra Vikram Singh, while hearing a revision plea, directed the Magistrate concerned to hear the matter afresh in light of Supreme Court precedents and then pass an order.
Briefly, the revision plea was filed by Nageshwar Mishra, challenging the Magistrate Court's November 28, 2024, order, in which his plea for FIR registration against Rahul Gandhi was rejected.
It is Mishra's case that during his US visit, Gandhi made a provocative statement questioning whether Sikhs in India feel safe wearing turbans or visiting Gurdwaras. According to him, such remarks were inflammatory, aimed at disturbing communal harmony.
The complainants further linked Gandhi's statements to prior political events such as the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh, alleging a consistent pattern of instigating unrest.
Importantly, in its order, the Magistrate court, while rejecting Mishra's plea, had noted that for an alleged offence committed outside India, proviso to Section 208 BNSS provides that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
Dealing with the revision plea, the Addl. District & Sessions Court opined that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the application solely on the ground that no prior sanction had been obtained from the Central Government under Section 208 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 188 CrPC) since the alleged offence occurred outside India.