The Allahabad High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that demanded a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the remarks made by businessman Robert Vadra regarding the Pahalgam terror attack. Vadra is also known for being the husband of Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the decision. The Court advised the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies available under the law, such as lodging a First Information Report (FIR) or filing a criminal complaint.
Read Also: Once Goods Are Verified in MOV-04, Revenue Can't Shift Its Stand Later: Allahabad High Court
“The petitioner is free to approach appropriate legal forums by adopting lawful procedures including but not limited to filing an FIR,” the Court stated.
The petition was filed by Hindu Front For Justice, through its President, Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri. It alleged that Vadra’s recent statements were provocative and had caused fear among the Hindu community, invoking Sections 152, 302, and 399 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the PIL, Vadra's speech could incite communal unrest. The plea claimed that Hindus are likely to perceive such statements as hate speech and feel threatened, suggesting Vadra's actions are aligned with the idea of 'Gajwa-e-Hind', which refers to the 'Conquest of India'.
Read Also: JEE Main Re-Exam Denied: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Citing Traffic Jam Delay
The plea specifically pointed out Vadra’s reported comment that non-Muslims were targeted in the Pahalgam attack because terrorists believe Muslims are being mistreated in India.
“Robert Vadra stating in his speech that Hindu people were killed because they propagated their religion, and blaming Hindutva for the killings, is a classic example of brainwashed victim-blaming for political vote banks and appeasement,” the plea submitted.
It further stated that Vadra's remarks were deliberate, targeted, and politically motivated, aiming to divide communities and promote religious appeasement.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Slams Habit of Seeking Adjournments: Calls Litigants’ Role in Delays a “Menace”
Additionally, the petitioner objected to Vadra’s alleged comment that the state is promoting Hinduism as a justification for the terror attack. The plea argued that such an interpretation distorts the constitutional meaning of secularism.
“The state is neither preaching nor encouraging any religion. The petitioner's understanding of secularism is flawed. Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution of India guarantee religious freedom to all citizens,” the plea argued.
The petition concluded by requesting an SIT probe to identify the root cause and the individuals behind what it described as a “poisonous, separatist and insensitive” statement. It also demanded that the Union of India and the Uttar Pradesh Government take suitable legal action under Sections 299, 152, and 302 of the BNS.
Ultimately, the High Court refrained from ordering any investigation and directed the petitioner to approach other legal avenues as per the existing legal framework.
