Varanasi Court Rejects Complaint Against LoP Rahul Gandhi Over Alleged 'Lord Rama A Mythological Figure' Remark

The complaint, rejected for being non-maintainable, was moved by Advocate Hari Shankar Pandey before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, terming Gandhi's alleged comment to be 'hateful' and 'controversial'

For context, the complaint alleged that Gandhi has been continuously making absurd statements about the previous incarnations and great symbols of Sanatan Dharma and that he keeps insulting the Hindus who believe in Sanatan Dharma, and this amounts to hate speech.

The complaint also referred to the recent oral remarks made by the Supreme Court expressing disapproval of Gandhi's comments against VD Savarkar.

“MP Rahul Gandhi and the Indian National Congress have become habitual offenders of such acts. In the matter concerning the great freedom fighter Veer Savarkar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had strongly reprimanded Shri Rahul Gandhi (Member of Parliament and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha) and his party. However, these people refuse to mend their ways. They continue to make baseless and offensive remarks about the incarnations and great symbols of Sanatan Dharma, thereby insulting Hindus who follow Sanatan Dharma. By delivering hate speech, they have committed a serious criminal offense,” the criminal complaint stated.

Importantly, the complaint argued that Gandhi's act becomes even more despicable when the Supreme Court of India, in its Ram Janmabhoomi dispute Judgment, has recognised the existence of Shri Ram Lalla.

Against this backdrop, Pandey prayed that Gandhi be summoned to face severe punishment for the offences committed under Sections 356, 351, 353 and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

In related news, the Supreme Court today rejected a petition which sought to include the name of VD Savarkar in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use )Act, 1956. The plea also contended that the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, was violating the petitioner's fundamental duties by making comments against Savarkar.