Sikh Remarks Case | Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Rahul Gandhi On Plea Against Varanasi Court Order
The Allahabad High Court today rejected a petition filed by the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi 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 made during his trip to the United States. A bench of Justice Sameer Jain found no illegality in the order of the lower revisional...
The Allahabad High Court today rejected a petition filed by the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi 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 made during his trip to the United States.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain found no illegality in the order of the lower revisional court which remitted back the matter to the concerned Magistrate.
"...it appears, it was incumbent upon lower revisional court to check the correctness and legality of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned magistrate concerned and as according to the revisional court the finding recorded by learned magistrate was erroneous, therefore, lower revisional court rightly set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 and remitted back the matter and therefore, it cannot be said that while passing the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 lower revisional court committed any illegality," the single judge observed.
For context, 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 was 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.