Remarks About Sikhs | 'Mere Apprehension Of Offence No Ground For FIR' : Varanasi Court Rejects Plea For FIR Against Rahul Gandhi

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA Court, Varanasi noted that the applicant only expressed 'apprehension' that Khalistani terrorists might use Gandhi's speech to spread violence and propaganda, but provided no concrete evidence of any such event or incident.

Thus, the plea filed by Nageshwar Mishra and another, claiming that Gandhi's statements incited people to fight for his political interests, was rejected by the Court.

Briefly put, the applicants described themselves as law-abiding Indian citizens and alleged that Gandhi's remarks during his US tour were provocative.

It was Mishra's case that during his US visit, Gandhi made the statement questioning whether Sikhs in India feel safe wearing turbans or visiting Gurdwaras.

The plea pointed out that Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun had endorsed Gandhi's statement as correct, which, the applicants argued, made “the work of Khalistani terrorists easier”.

They further claimed that the remarks could provoke violence in India and aid anti-India propaganda worldwide.

The plea also compared the alleged impact of Gandhi's comments to his speeches during the 'Bharat Bachao Rally' at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan in December 2019, which the plea claimed, led to the Shaheen Bagh protests and subsequent riots causing over 100 deaths.

The petitioners also cited a statement by Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who allegedly said that “a situation like Bangladesh could arise in India”. The plea said that it was proof of a conspiracy to spark civil war in the country.

Readers may note that the complaint/petition had earlier been dismissed by the trial court on November 28, 2024.

The petitioners then filed a criminal revision, which directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter with respect to the speech made by Rahul Gandhi in the US, in light of the Supreme Court's orders, and pass a fresh order.

The revisional court also clarified that no prior sanction from the Central Government was required for any investigation into speeches made outside India.

Later, in September this year, the Allahabad High Court rejected Gandhi's petition challenging the revisional court's order.

Court's Observations

Upon reconsideration, ACJM Niraj Kumar Tripathi, at the outset, referred to the observations made by the HC in Gandhi's case which reads thus:

"If any application under section 173 (4) BNSS is moved against an individual then before giving direction to register the case and to investigate the matter, it is necessary for the magistrate concerned to record the finding whether any cognizable offence against said individual is made out or not as for registration of the FIR and to investigate the matter".

The Court further added that an FIR shall be registered only when the information prima facie discloses commission of an offence. Similarly, the court also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods vs Special Judicial Magistrate 1997 to note that mere apprehension of a crime neing committed is not enough to register an FIR.

The Magistrate noted that the applicant had only expressed 'apprehension' that Khalistani terrorists might use Gandhi's speech to spread violence and propaganda, but provided no concrete evidence of any such event or connection.

"Apart from this apprehension, no solid basis or any incident has been cited in the application which could support the applicant's claim that the speech affected the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India", the court observed.

The order also noted that the application did not specify the date, time or place of Gandhi's alleged statement in the US. Thus, finding that no cognizable offence was made out on the facts presented, the court dismissed the application under Section 173(4) BNSS.