Varanasi Court Reevaluates Magistrate’s Rejection of FIR Against Rahul Gandhi
In a significant legal development, a sessions court in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, has overturned a magistrate’s earlier decision to dismiss a plea requesting the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against Rahul Gandhi, a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress. The plea concerned allegations about Gandhi’s remarks on Lord Ram during a speech he delivered at a United States university.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Yajuvendra Vikram Singh presided over the case and instructed the magistrate to reassess the plea initiated by Advocate Harishankar Pandey. The court’s decision centered on the interpretation of procedural requirements under Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judge clarified that the Central Government’s approval to prosecute Gandhi for alleged offenses committed abroad is not necessary at the initial stage of examining the complaint, but rather at the stage of cognizance.
Legal Nuances of the Cognizance Stage
The court elaborated that the cognizance stage in private complaints arises after evidence is presented by the complainant. At this juncture, the accused is provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations. On May 12, 2025, Advocate Pandey lodged a complaint asserting that Rahul Gandhi, in his address at Brown University, characterized Lord Ram as a “mythological and fictional figure.” Pandey argued that such remarks were “hateful” and “controversial,” demanding the registration of an FIR under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Despite these assertions, the magistrate initially dismissed Pandey’s plea. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Pandey sought revision, contending that the magistrate’s decision was rooted in technicalities rather than substantive legal grounds. The sessions court found merit in Pandey’s arguments and permitted the continuation of the proceedings.
Implications of the Court’s Decision
This ruling highlights the procedural intricacies involved in initiating legal action for remarks made outside the country. It underscores the court’s role in ensuring that technical procedural issues do not overshadow substantive legal claims. The case will now return to the magistrate for a renewed examination, which could potentially lead to further legal actions depending on the magistrate’s subsequent findings.
More Read
The decision not only affects the immediate parties involved but also may set a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, especially concerning statements made by Indian citizens on international platforms.
