Varanasi court asks Magistrate to reconsider plea for FIR against Rahul Gandhi

An additional district and sessions court in Varanasi on Monday set aside a magistrate court order which had dismissed a plea seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his remarks about the plight of Sikh community.

While hearing a revision plea filed by one filed by Nageshwar Mishra, judge Yajuvendra Vikram Singh directed the concerned Magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the relevant Supreme Court precedents, and then pass a new order.

"Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2025, Nageshwar Mishra & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, is allowed...The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate on Application No. 3200/2024 in the case of Nageshwar Mishra & Others vs. Rahul Gandhi is set aside...The learned Magistrate is directed to rehear the matter in light of this revision order and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and to ensure that a fresh order is passed in accordance with law," the Court directed.

The plea filed by Mishra in 2024 alleged that Gandhi made an objectionable statement during his visit to the United States, claiming there is an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India.

The plea alleged that the statement was provocative and intended to incite people to act in furtherance of Gandhi's political interests.

The plea also contended that similar 'propaganda' was spread by Gandhi during a Rally organized at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on December 14, 2019, which resulted in a massive protest at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, which tragically ended in violence and anarchy.

While rejecting the plea, the magistrate court had observed that under the proviso to Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), an offence committed outside India cannot be inquired into or tried in India without prior sanction from the Central government.

This led to the revision plea before the sessions court.

The sessions judge observed that term ‘inquiry’ in the proviso to Section 208 of the BNSS refers to the stage after cognizance has been taken upon the filing of the charge sheet and charges have been framed, at which point prior approval from the Central Government is required.

"The learned Magistrate, observing that there was no mention of any portion of the speech delivered by the respondent Rahul Gandhi in Delhi, did not find the commission of any cognizable offence in that regard. However, with respect to the statement made by Rahul Gandhi in the United States, the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 was passed under the proviso to Section 208 of the BNSS," the Court said while allowing the revision plea.

[Read Order]