Varanasi’s special MP-MLA court has accepted a criminal complaint lodged by Shashank Shekhar Tripathi, alleging derogatory remarks were made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his mother at a Congress rally in Darbhanga, Bihar. The court will hear arguments on 17 September to decide whether the petition is maintainable under Section 223 of the BNS.
The complaint names, among others, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, and Congress’s officially associated social media platforms, accusing them of sharing inflammatory content targeting the Prime Minister, central government, and constitutional institutions. Tripathi, who heads BJP’s legal cell in the Kashi region, claims these actions amount to a planned attack against democracy and public order.
According to the plea, at a ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ event in Darbhanga, slogans derogatory to the PM and his mother were chanted, and posts amplifying those slogans were disseminated via Congress’s official social media. The complaint argues this behaviour could incite enmity and disturb public peace.
Legally, Section 223 of the BNS empowers certain courts to take cognisance of offences that are non-cognisable, which means no police FIR is needed for the court to act. The court’s role is limited to deciding whether the complaint is maintainable; that is, whether it fits within legal jurisdiction and meets procedural requirements.
There is political context. BJP’s legal cell argues that such remarks and their amplifications are not isolated events but part of a pattern of insults and propaganda against the Prime Minister and state institutions. Congress has not yet issued a public, detailed counter statement but is expected to respond at the hearing. Observers note this is one of several legal challenges initiated by BJP-aligned parties when speeches or slogans by political opponents provoke controversy.
Earlier cases show the courts at various levels have become key battlegrounds for speech made during political rallies or via social media. Legal experts say that even when slogans or remarks occur far from a defendant’s home state, jurisdictional issues often become the being addressed. A court must assess whether the alleged speech or content is actionable under applicable laws and whether the venue is proper.
Tripathi has framed this case as vital not merely for personal redress but for defending the dignity of constitutional offices. Critics counter that political motivations may underlie many such complaints, and that courts must guard against misuse of legal processes to stifle political speech. Legal analysts say the 17 September hearing will be closely watched, because the decision on maintainability will determine whether the court continues to adjudicate.
Protocol Clash Between Rahul, Minister at Rae Bareli Meeting 