The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to register an FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya over allegedly objectionable remarks concerning the Upadhyay community and religious personalities.
A Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena held that a person complaining about non-registration of an FIR must ordinarily first use the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), rather than directly invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
The judgment was delivered on September 1, 2026, in Ramesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 4 Others.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a practising advocate, alleged that certain statements made by respondent no. 4, identified in the order as Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, were circulated through social media, including YouTube. According to the petition, the statements caused humiliation and hurt the sentiments of the petitioner and members of the Upadhyay community.
The petitioner claimed that a complaint seeking registration of an FIR had been sent to the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, but no FIR was registered. The State, however, disputed whether the complaint had actually been received by any police official and pointed out that there was no postal or police record proving its receipt.
The State further argued that the petitioner had approached the High Court without first approaching the concerned police station or Magistrate under the BNSS.
Court's Observation
The Bench examined whether the writ petition could be maintained when the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
The Court explained that although the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, those powers are discretionary. Ordinarily, when an effective alternative remedy exists, the High Court should not be approached at the first instance.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and noted that a Magistrate has the power to direct registration of an FIR and ensure a proper investigation.
"This remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC [Section 175(3) BNSS] is not merely an alternative, instead, it is the primary and preferred remedy that must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226."
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, stating that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be used to compel registration of an FIR where statutory remedies under the BNSS remain available and have not been exhausted.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that the principle in Lalita Kumari requiring registration of an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence does not permit a complainant to bypass the statutory remedies available when the police allegedly fail to act.
Decision
The Court found no sufficient reason to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 to direct registration of the FIR. It also noted that it remained disputed whether the petitioner had approached any police authority before filing the writ petition.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. However, the Bench granted the petitioner liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy available under law.
Case Details
Case Title: Ramesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20106 of 2026
Judges: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena
Decision Date: September 1, 2026
