Uttar Pradesh Government’s Opposition to Rahul Gandhi’s Supreme Court Appeal
The Uttar Pradesh government has formally opposed the petition submitted by Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, to the Supreme Court. Gandhi sought to quash a summons issued by a magistrate concerning his remarks on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a prominent figure in Hindutva ideology. The state government contends that Gandhi’s actions were deliberate and aimed at spreading hatred, urging the apex court to dismiss his appeal.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
In response to the notice from the Supreme Court, the Uttar Pradesh government maintained that the magistrate had appropriately assessed the evidence, establishing a prima facie case under Sections 153-A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The original summons were issued by a Lucknow Magistrate Court on December 12, 2024.
Previously, in April 2025, the Supreme Court had stayed the summons against Gandhi. However, the Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, criticized Gandhi’s comments that labeled Savarkar a collaborator with the British, highlighting that such statements disrespected freedom fighters. The justices warned of potential suo motu action if Gandhi continued making similar statements. The Court emphasized that even Gandhi’s grandmother, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, had praised Savarkar in her correspondence.
Allahabad High Court’s Stance and Subsequent Developments
Before approaching the Supreme Court, Gandhi’s plea was rejected by the Allahabad High Court on April 4, 2025. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi advised Gandhi to seek remedies through a sessions court, per Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than appealing directly to the High Court. Consequently, Gandhi filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Charges and Allegations Against Gandhi
Rahul Gandhi is facing charges under IPC Sections 153A, for promoting enmity, and 505, for public mischief. The accusations stem from remarks made during his Bharat Jodo Yatra on November 17, 2022, where he referred to Savarkar as a British collaborator who received a pension from the colonial government. Advocate Nripendra Pandey, who filed the complaint, argued that Gandhi’s words were intended to incite societal hatred. Pandey also noted that Mahatma Gandhi had acknowledged Savarkar as a patriot.
More Read
Judicial Process and Current Status
Initially, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambrish Kumar Srivastava dismissed Pandey’s complaint in June 2023. However, upon Pandey’s challenge, the sessions court remanded the case back to the magistrate, leading to the issuance of the summons against Gandhi. The magistrate observed that Gandhi’s statements about Savarkar’s alleged collaboration with the British had potentially spread societal ill-will, establishing a prima facie case against him.
After the High Court’s rejection of his challenge to the summoning order, Gandhi escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, where the case is currently under consideration.
