The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in relation to the remarks made by him about religious freedom in India, in relation to the Sikh community [Nageshwar Mishra and another v State of UP and another]

Justice Vikram D Chauhan noted that Gandhi had said that there is an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India.

The Court observed that the statement only raised concerns about a community or section of society.

Gandhi as an elected representative has the right to raise concerns in respect of a minority community, the bench added.

"The respondent no. 2 being an elected representative has a right to raise concerns in respect of section of society. Further, questioning the rights of minorities by elected representative by itself cannot be an offence and the said speech of respondent no. 2 will have protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of Constitution," the Court said.

The Court also observed that an elected representative raising concerns on foreign soil may for some individuals be a question of impropriety or deviation from long standing tradition of parliamentary democracy, but that by itself does not make the speech an offence. 

“Even if statements made by an elected representative concerning an individual were to be found inaccurate or unsubstantiated, the appropriate recourse lies in subjecting such statements to scrutiny through parliamentary debate or open public discourse, so that the truth may be ascertained through the free contest of ideas or thoughts. Thus the alleged speech of respondent no. 2 is protected by Article 19 of Constitution,” the Court added.

The Court further said that raising of public concerns by an elected representative is not an optional courtesy but his core function.  

When concerns are raised openly in the legislature or in public forums, they enter the public record, inform citizens, and invite scrutiny of government action, the bench said.

"This keeps democratic discourse alive and vibrant. Legislation and policy formed by such inputs tend to be more practical & responsive and such concerns are an aid for government for better governance and accountability. The concerns of elected representative or individual which keep government of the day informed turns an election from a one-time event into a continuing relationship of good governance and accountability," it added.

According to media reports, Gandhi had made the comment about religious freedom while addressing a Sikh audience member during an event in the United States of America (USA) on September 9, 2024.

"The fight is about whether he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear a turban in India; or whether, he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear a 'kada' in India; or he, as a Sikh, is going to be able to go to a gurdwara. That's what the fight is about, and not just for him, but for all religions... We are of the opinion that every state, tradition and language is as important as any other one," Gandhi is reported to have said.

Later, the complainant, one Nageshwar Mishra, moved a magistrate in Varanasi seeking an FIR against him. He argued that the statement was provocative and intended to incite people to act in furtherance of Gandhi's political interests.

The complaint was dismissed last year. In the order passed on October 17, 2025 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Niraj Kumar Tripathi observed that an FIR cannot be lodged merely on the basis of an apprehension that a crime may be committed.

It noted that Mishra had only expressed an apprehension that pro-Khalistan groups might misuse the statement to spread violence in India. However, the complainant failed to cite any concrete evidence or incident to support his claim, the Court found.

The order passed by the magistrate was challenged before a sessions court. The revision plea was dismissed on July 9, leading to the present challenge.

In the order passed today, the High Court observed that in a democratic polity, freedom of speech and expression constitutes a foundational safeguard, enabling every individual to articulate and disseminate personal views without hindrance.

"The vitality of a democratic order depends upon the free and open exchange of views, unencumbered by fear of retaliation. Any unwarranted curtailment of this liberty compels the individual to conform to a state-sanctioned or otherwise prescribed narrative, thereby eroding the individual’s moral autonomy and impairing the ethical integrity of the body politic," the Court said.

The single-judge also said that it is the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution including the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and to thwart any attempt to undermine freedom of speech and expression.

The lodging of the FIR has serious consequences on individual as the same may curtail liberty of an individual, the bench said.

"It is therefore necessary for courts to examine whether any objection to the speech or expression would violate fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of an individual," the Court said.

The Court said that certain sections of society or individuals may not agree with statement made by Gandhi but that itself would not be a cause for considering the it as an offence. It added that Gandhi's speech did not tend to incite violence or disturb public order.

"It merely articulates the concerns of a certain segment of society. If a third party misinterprets or appropriates the said speech to advance its own ends, the responsibility for any ensuing consequences lies exclusively with that party, which is amenable to the law for its own acts," it added.

It further said that no circumstances and material particulars were shown to indicate that Gandhi's speech resulted in inciting secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities or encouraging feelings of separatist activities or endangering the sovereignty or integrity of India.

Having found that no cognizable offence was made out from Gandhi's speech, the Court dismissed the plea.

Advocate Satyendra Kumar Tripathi represented the applicants.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal represented the State.

[Read Judgment]