Varanasi Court Directs Fresh Hearing On Plea Seeking FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Over Remarks On Sikhs, Sets Aside Magistrate's Order

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 put, the revision plea was filed by one Nageshwar Mishra, challenging the Magistrate Court's November 28, 2024, order, wherein 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.

Relying on landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India 1993, Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. 2011 and Narela Chiranjivi Arun Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2021, the Sessions Court note that:

“…under the proviso to Section 208 BNSS, prior sanction of the Central Government is not necessary till cognizance is taken of a case, but after cognizance, the trial cannot be started unless the approval of the Central Government is obtained.”

Thus, the Court found that the 'inquiry' mentioned in the proviso to Section 208 BNSS is in relation to the inquiry after cognizance is taken on filing of charge sheet in a case and after framing of charges, in respect of which prior approval of the Central Government is necessary.

It added that since prior approval of the Central Government is not necessary for any inquiry or inquiry till cognizance is taken, in such a situation, prior approval of the Central Government is not mandatory for passing an order under Section 173(4) BNSS

In essence, the Court opined that for passing of an order under Section 173 (4) BNSS, no such previous sanction of the central government is required.

The Court also distinguished Gandhi's alleged remarks in the U.S. from his Delhi Ramleela Maidan speech as it noted that while the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application insofar as it pertained to the Delhi speech, the dismissal regarding the US remarks was contrary to law.

Thus, allowing the criminal revision (No. 61/2025), the Court quashed the Magistrate's order dated November 28, 2024, and directed:

“The Magistrate shall reconsider the matter afresh in light of this revision order and principles laid down by the Supreme Court and pass an order in accordance with law”.