The Allahabad High Court has dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging a Varanasi court order, thereby permitting the magistrate court in that city to hear afresh an FIR application over his alleged remarks about Sikhs in the United States.
A bench led by Justice Sameer Jain upheld the July order of the MP/MLA Special Court in Varanasi, which set aside a magistrate’s dismissal of the FIR application and remitted the matter back for re-examination. The High Court found no legal infirmity in that direction.
The dispute began with a complaint filed by Nageshwar Mishra of Varanasi, who alleged that during an event in the US in September 2024, Gandhi had remarked that the “environment in India was not good for Sikhs,” questioning whether Sikhs were free to wear turbans or visit gurdwaras. The complainant approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, but that court rejected the FIR plea on 28 November 2024, citing lack of jurisdiction since the utterance was made abroad.
Mishra then challenged that dismissal before the MP/MLA sessions court in Varanasi. On 21 July 2025, the sessions court allowed his revision, setting aside the magistrate’s order and directing a fresh hearing. Gandhi responded by filing a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the sessions court’s decision and stay further proceedings.
Gandhi’s legal team argued that Mishra’s application failed to specify the exact date of the remark, and contended that the lower courts did not assess whether a prima facie case existed. They also questioned the jurisdiction of courts in India to act on statements made outside the territory. The state, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered that a leader’s public remarks—even abroad—may merit scrutiny, and pressed that prima facie validity must be tested by a magistrate.
Justice Jain’s ruling found that the sessions court had not transgressed legal bounds when remitting the case. The High Court observed that the sessions court was justified in reviewing whether the magistrate’s findings were erroneous and in directing a fresh hearing. The bench held that the High Court itself was not to substitute its view for that of the magistrate at this stage.
The dismissal of Gandhi’s revision petition removes a legal hurdle for the lower court to commence its assessment of the FIR application. In its judgment, the High Court affirmed that the Varanasi ACJM must examine all legal and factual aspects afresh, including the question of jurisdiction and whether prima facie ingredients of a cognisable offence are present.
Critics note that the case raises sensitive issues regarding speech made abroad by public figures and the bounds of domestic jurisdiction. Legal analysts highlight Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code and analogous provisions as central to whether statements made overseas can be treated as offences in India. The litigation also places pressure on procedural norms: the magistrate will now have to weigh scope, context and legal precedent before deciding whether the FIR should be registered.
Within political circles, Gandhi’s opponents see this as a significant judicial setback, arguing it removes interim protection and intensifies scrutiny of his public statements. His supporters warn that the ongoing case may become a tool for political pressure.
Health, Heir Questions Rock Bihar Poll Discourse 