The Allahabad High Court has denied relief to the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi over his remarks on religious freedom in India in the context of the Sikh Community.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, "....it appears, it was incumbent upon lower revisional court to check the correctness and legality of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned magistrate concerned and as according to the revisional court the finding recorded by learned magistrate was erroneous, therefore, lower revisional court rightly set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 and remitted back the matter and therefore, it cannot be said that while passing the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 lower revisional court committed any illegality."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Alok Ranjan Mishra, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Aman Singh Visen.

Facts of the Case

In the Application filed before the Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, it was stated that Rahul Gandhi who is the Opposition Leader of the Country, during his U.S.A. visit made highly objectionable statement that there is insecure environment for Sikh community in India and whether they will be permitted to follow their religious traditions or not and Sikh community also raised objection on the statement given by Rahul Gandhi because his statement is for promoting animosity between the groups and the statement given by the Rahul Gandhi was provocative.

It was submitted that the statement of Rahul Gandhi was an act of endangering the sovereignty of the Country and was an attempt to wage war against the Government of India and he conspired for civil war. It was further mentioned that Rahul Gandhi during agitation against C.A.A. in a rally gave such speech due to which more than 100 persons lost their lives.

The Magistrate dismissed the Application on the ground that as Rahul Gandhi gave the statement outside India, therefore, in view of Section 208 BNSS sanction was necessary for registration of the case against him which is not on record and with regard to the speech delivered by him in Delhi during the C.A.A. agitation, prima facie, no cognizable offence is made out against him.

Counsel for Rahul Gandhi submitted that the Magistrate did not record any finding whether from his alleged statement of given in U.S.A. any cognizable offence is made out or not. He further submitted, as entire material was before Lower Revisional Court, therefore, it was desirable for Revisional Court to give finding whether from the alleged statement given by Rahul Gandhi in U.S.A., any cognizable offence is made out or not. Thus, by remitting the matter to the Magistrate, the Lower Revisional Court committed illegality.

He further submitted that sanction under Section 208 BNSS is required for trial and not for registration of FIR and to investigate the matter. It was averred that on the basis of statement given by Rahul Gandhi in U.S.A., it cannot be said that he either waged war against the Government of India or made attempt to wage war or abetted the waging war against Government of India. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1962, Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 1995, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997, Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007, Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya and others, 2021 and S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India; (2022).

The Counsel argued that there was absolutely no need for the Lower Revisional Court to remit the matter back as he could very well decide the issue whether any cognizable offence against Rahul Gandhi is made out or not, including offences under Sections 147, 148 and 152 of the BNS.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that considering the provisions of Section 208 of the BNSS, the observation made by the Lower Revisional Court cannot be said to be illegal and even the Counsel for Rahul Gandhi admitted that sanction is not required under Section 208 BNSS for registration and investigation of the case.

It stated that according to Section 438 BNSS, the Court or Court of Sessions may check the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding recorded by the inferior court and therefore, Section 438 of the BNSS itself suggests that the revisional power of the Court and Court of Sessions is limited to check the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding recorded by the inferior court.

".......while dismissing the application moved by opposite party no. 2 under section 173(4) BNSS no finding was recorded whether from the statement of revisionist given at U.S.A., any cognizable offence is made out or not and his application was dismissed mainly on the ground of requirement of sanction, therefore, in view of this Court, it was not required for lower revisional court to give such finding of facts on merit while passing the impugned order....", the Court observed.

It stated that if any application under Section 173(4) of the 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, it is necessary that a cognizable offence is made out.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. and Another (2025:AHC:175557)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Alok Ranjan Mishra

Respondent- Advocate Aman Singh Visen, Government Advocate Satyendra Kumar Tripathi

Click here to read/ download Order



Allahabad High CourtJustice Sameer Jain

Sheetal Joon