The Allahabad High Court has refused to direct the registration of an FIR against Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over his remarks concerning the security of the Sikh community in India during a foreign visit. The Court held that the alleged speech did not disclose a cognizable offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and was protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging the orders of the Varanasi Magistrate and Revisional Court, which had refused to direct the registration of an FIR.
Background
The applicants, Nageshwar Mishra and another, approached the Magistrate seeking an FIR against Rahul Gandhi under Sections 147, 148 and 152 of the BNS. They alleged that during his visit to a foreign country, Gandhi had questioned whether Sikhs in India were free to wear turbans and visit Gurdwaras.
According to the applicants, the remarks could encourage separatist activities and threaten India's sovereignty and integrity. They also relied on media reports and alleged support for the remarks from a separatist organisation.
The Magistrate rejected their application on October 17, 2025, observing that the complaint did not establish the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The Varanasi Revisional Court upheld that decision on July 9, 2026, prompting the applicants to approach the High Court.
Examining Section 152 BNS alongside Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, the Court emphasised that freedom of speech cannot be restricted merely because certain individuals disagree with an expressed opinion.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that discussion and advocacy remain protected unless they reach the level of incitement.
The Court observed:
"Questioning the rights of minorities by elected representative by itself cannot be an offence and the said speech of respondent no. 2 will have protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of Constitution. It is further to be noted that certain sections of society or individuals may not agree with statement of respondent no. 2 however that itself would not be a cause for considering the said speech as an offence."
The Court further noted that the alleged remarks merely articulated concerns about a section of society and did not, on their face, demonstrate incitement to violence or disturbance of public order.
The Court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient material to establish how the speech encouraged secession, armed rebellion or activities threatening India's sovereignty and integrity. The application also lacked specific details regarding the date, time and place of the alleged speech, and the complete extract of the speech had not been placed before the Court.
The Court observed:
"Suspicion is a belief that something may have happened. Proof is evidence showing that it must have happened. The grave suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof."
Holding that no cognizable offence under Section 152 BNS was made out from the alleged speech, the Allahabad High Court found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Magistrate and Revisional Court.
Accordingly dismissed the application
