Reserving Order On Rahul Gandhi's Revision Plea, Allahabad HC Asks Magistrate Not To Proceed In 'Sikh Remarks' Case Till Verdict

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain also said that it expects the Magistrate Court not to proceed in the matter until the judgment is delivered.

Briefly put, 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.

Earlier today, Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi (appearing for Gandhi) submitted in the HC that Gandhi had not incited the Sikh community to rise in rebellion and that the court did not consider his entire speech to gather his intent.

He also submitted 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.

More about his submissions here: 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

Opposing Gandhi's plea, the Uttar Pradesh Government argued before the Allahabad High Court that the magistrate must be allowed to apply his 'independent mind' to assess whether a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against him.

The state submitted that in revisional jurisdiction, the courts are not permitted to look into the defence, and if the magistrate feels that a cognizable offence is made out, he may direct registration of an FIR.

Importantly, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal strongly argued that Gandhi made the alleged statements as a leader of opposition, holding a place of responsibility, and being known as the voice of opposition.

"It has not been pointed out that he is also the leader of the opposition; he is known outside the country as such. His voice is the voice of the opposition. The opposition has this view regarding the rights of minorities in the country, and this is what they are projecting on foreign soil", he submitted.

More details of his arguments here: Remarks On Sikhs | Rahul Gandhi Projected Opposition's Views Abroad; Magistrate To Decide If Offences Made Out : UP Govt To Allahabad High Court

For context, one Nageshwar Mishra had originally moved the Magistrate Court in Varanasi seeking an FIR against Rahul Gandhi. He contended 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 and 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.

The Magistrate had, however, dismissed his plea. Pursuant to this, Mishra moved to the Sessions Judge court, wherein the impugned order was passed directing the Magistrate court to hear Mishra's plea afresh.

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.