The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a revision petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, challenging a Varanasi court's order that sent back a complaint against him for fresh consideration. The case revolves around statements allegedly made by Gandhi in the United States and earlier during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Background
The controversy began when a local applicant, Nageshwar Mishra, moved a plea under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in September 2024, accusing Gandhi of making "provocative" remarks during a U.S. visit. Mishra alleged that Gandhi's comments about the Sikh community being insecure in India not only spread animosity but also amounted to attempts at "waging war against the government." He even referred to Gandhi's speech during a 2019 anti-CAA rally in Delhi, claiming it had fueled unrest.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Allows Russian Mother and Two Children to Return Home, Rejects Custody Plea
The magistrate in Varanasi, however, dismissed the application in November 2024, saying that sanction from the Centre was necessary before proceeding because the remarks were made outside India. Dissatisfied, Mishra appealed, and the sessions court overturned the magistrate’s ruling in July 2025. It sent the matter back to the lower court to reconsider whether an FIR should be registered.
Court's Observations
Before Justice Sameer Jain, senior counsel for Gandhi argued that the remand was "unnecessary and illegal." He insisted the sessions court should have directly decided whether Gandhi’s alleged remarks disclosed any cognizable offence.
"By merely sending it back, the lower revisional court prolonged unnecessary litigation," counsel contended.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifies scope of police dismissals and review powers under service rules
The bench, however, took a different view. It noted that the magistrate had wrongly dismissed the plea only on the ground of sanction, without examining if a cognizable offence was disclosed. The sessions court, in correcting that mistake, was within its powers to remit the case.
Justice Jain explained:
"The revisional powers of this Court and the sessions court are limited to examining the correctness and legality of an inferior court’s order. It was not for the sessions court to record findings on facts that the magistrate had never considered."
The court further clarified that sanction under Section 208 BNSS is required only for trial and inquiry, not for registration of an FIR or investigation.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Allows UPPSC Mains Exam to Proceed but Stays Result Declaration Until Appeal Decision
"This observation by the lower revisional court cannot be said to be illegal," the bench added.
Decision
In the end, the High Court dismissed Gandhi's plea, holding that there was no illegality in the sessions court's order. The judge said it was now for the magistrate to decide afresh whether Gandhi's statements amounted to offences under the new penal code provisions.
With this, the political flashpoint returns to the Varanasi magistrate's court, where both sides will once again battle over whether Gandhi's speeches cross the line from political criticism into criminal liability.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4946 of 2025
