'Wealth Distribution' Remark | No Intent To Promote Enmity : UP Court Upholds Rejection Of Plea For FIR Against Rahul Gandhi

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly, Devashish thus upheld the Magistrate's August 27, 2024 order, observing that Gandhi's remarks did not appear to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will among different groups.

The revisionist, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha's Pankaj Pathak, in his original plea has alleged that Rahul Gandhi, while addressing the public during the Lok Sabha election campaign, made statements intending to incite class hatred and create disharmony between economically weaker and affluent sections of society and was attempting to start a civil war in the country.

After his plea under Section 156 (3) CrPC was dismissed by the MP/MLA Magistrate Court in August 2024, he moved the present revision plea.

The plea claimed that the Magistrate court had erred in relying on the police report and in failing to appreciate that the property rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution were being undermined by Gandhi's “divisive appeal.”

However, the revision court rejected these arguments and affirmed the lower court's finding that no cognizable offence was made out.

It noted that the Magistrate had rightly relied upon the police inquiry report dated August 9, 2024, which stated that no public disturbance, complaint, or reaction had been reported in connection with Gandhi's remarks, and that none of the persons allegedly present at the time of the speech could be traced.

The court observed that the petitioner himself admitted to having heard the alleged speech on television while sitting in the court premises, and that the names of persons who supposedly reacted to it were not mentioned in his application under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The judge emphasized that the statement in question must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong-minded person will think and not on the basis of the views of the hyper sensitive person who scent danger in every hostile point of view.

"From a reading of the speech in question, it does not appear that the same was delivered with the intention of spreading ill will or enmity", the court said.

The Special Judge further observed that while the revisionist alleged that the speech was made during the Lok Sabha elections, the matter of such alleged 'provocative speeches' during elections falls under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India.

It added that if the petitioner believed the speech violated the Model Code of Conduct, he should have approached the Commission.

Advocates Pranshu Agrawal and Mohd. Yasir Abbasi appeared for Gandhi.