Allahabad HC Rejects Plea Seeking Registration Of FIR Against Rahul Gandhi

 It is a matter of immense significance to note that while applying its judicial mind, the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India, in not only just Asia, in not only just Asia and Africa, in not only just few continents but in all the continents all over the world which has just no parallel anywhere in the world moat astonishingly even after the partition of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand on November 9, 2000 in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Nageshwar Mishra and another v State of UP and another in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. - 45522 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC230511 that was reserved on 16.10.2026 and then finally pronounced on 5.11.2026 has rejected a plea seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in relation to the remarks made by him about religious freedom in India, in relation to the Sikh community. We need to note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram D Chauhan observed that Gandhi had said that there is an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India. It was also held by the Court that the statement only raised concerns about a community or section of society. It was further added by the Bench that, “Gandhi as an elected representative has the right to raise concerns in respect of a minority community.”

We need to note that according to media reports, Rahul Gandhi had made the comment about religious freedom while addressing a Sikh audience member during an event in the USA on September 9, 2024. In this context, it would be pertinent to note that the complainant named Nageshwar Mishra moved a Magistrate in Varanasi seeking an FIR to be lodged against Rahul Gandhi. Mishra vehemently underscored that the statement of Rahul Gandhi was provocative and intended to incite people to act in furtherance of Gandhi’s political interests.

Interestingly enough, the complaint to lodge FIR was dismissed last year in 2025. It merits noting that in the order that had been passed on October 17, 2025 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Niraj Kumar Tripathi explicitly ruled that an FIR cannot be lodged merely on the basis of an apprehension that a crime may be committed. The Court noted that Mishra had only expressed an apprehension that pro-Khalistan groups might misuse the statement to spread violence in India.

Most recently, we witnessed how a pro-Khalistan organisation named Khalistan Liberation Army has threatened big attacks on Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura as reported in media! But its authenticity is still being investigated by investigating agencies! The Court found in this leading case that the complainant had failed to cite any concrete evidence or incident to support his claim.

The order that had been passed by the Magistrate was challenged before the Sessions Court. The revision plea was also dismissed on July 9, 2026 leading to the present challenge. But here too we see that the Allahabad High Court having found that no cognizable offence was made out from Rahul Gandhi’s speech, the Court dismissed the plea to lodge FIR against Rahul Gandhi.     

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 30 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In the present case, the alleged offending speech of respondent no. 2 that there is an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India, and asked whether, a Sikh would be allowed to wear a turban or not, and whether he would be able to go to a Gurudwara (Place of worship). Perusal of the above-mentioned alleged speech of respondent no. 2 on face of it raising concerns about a community or section of society. The respondent no. 2 being an elected representative has a right to raise concerns in respect of section of society. Further, 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. Disagreeing with one’s view is part of vibrant democracy. For bringing the alleged speech of respondent no. 2 in category of an offence under Section 152 of B.N.S., 2023, the applicants would have to demonstrate that the alleged speech comes within ambit of Article 19(2) of Constitution and further the ingredients of Section 152 of B.N.S., 2023 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of case.”

Most commendably, the Bench minces absolutely just no words to hold in para 32 that, “It is settled law that suspicion cannot be foundation for criminal prosecution. 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. It is the suspicion of applicants (without there being any material foundation and circumstances), that the alleged offending speech of respondent no. 2 comes within the offence under Section 152 of B.N.S., 2023. It is further to be noted that raising concerns regarding security of certain segment of society by itself may not amount to an offence under Section 152 of B.N.S., 2023 more specifically when such concerns are raised by elected representatives. It is also true that certain sections of the society (including the majority) may disagree with statement of elected representative or disapprove the statement, however, the aforesaid section of society is permitted under law to respectfully disagree and give their own views rejecting the statement of elected representative. It is further to be noted that raising concerns by elected representative on foreign soil which may for some individuals be a question of impropriety or deviation from long standing tradition of parliamentary democracy, however, that by itself does not make the offending speech an offence. Even if statements made by an elected representative concerning an individual were to be found inaccurate or unsubstantiated, the appropriate recourse lies in subjecting such statements to scrutiny through parliamentary debate or open public discourse, so that the truth may be ascertained through the free contest of ideas or thoughts. Thus the alleged speech of respondent no. 2 is protected by Article 19 of Constitution.”

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram D Chauhan of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused the records.”

As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that, “The present application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred by the applicants challenging the order dated 9.7.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No 5, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 588 of 2025 (Nageshwar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. & another) and order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4/M.P.M.L.A., Varanasi in Miscellaneous Application No. 3200 of 2024 (Nageshwar Mishra and another Vs. Rahul Gandhi) under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S, 2023, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 that, “The applicants initially preferred an application dated 26.9.2024 under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S, 2023 before the court of Judicial Magistrate (Second), Varanasi for lodging a first information report against respondent no. 2 for offence under Sections 147, 148 and 152 of B.N.S., 2023 and investigation of same. In the aforesaid application preferred by applicants it is alleged as follows:-

3.1 The applicant(s) been deeply disturbed by reading news published across all news channels and newspapers, in which the leader of country’s principal opposition party - respondent no 2, during his visit to Foreign Country, made an extremely objectionable statement. Respondent no. 2 has stated that there is an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India, and asked whether a Sikh, would be allowed to wear a turban or not, and whether he would be able to go to Gurudwara. Respondent no. 2 made this remark in his event after asking the name of a Sikh journalist present there, namely, Shri Bhalinder Singh. The aforesaid Shri Bhalinder Singh along with other Sikhs, also objected to it, because this statement is one that incites people against one another for his own political interests.

3.2 The statement of respondent no. 2 regarding Sikhs is so inflammatory that it can be gauged from the fact that one terrorist Gurpatwant Singh “Pannuu” has endorsed his remarks as correct. In a way, this has made the work of terrorists easier, and it is certain that terrorists will take advantage of this statement to try to spread violence and anarchy in India and run a propaganda campaign against India around the world.

3.3 Further, said statement of respondent no. 2 is a conspiracy to incite civil war against India. As proof, the recent statement by Sri Salman Khurshid, a Congress leader close to respondent no. 2 stated that “a situation like Bangladesh could arise in India too,” is a punishable offence under Sections 147, 148 and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

Most fundamentally, the Bench underscores in para 17 propounding that, “In a democratic polity, the freedom of speech and expression constitute a foundational safeguard, enabling every individual to articulate and disseminate personal views without hindrance. The vitality of a democratic order depends upon the free and open exchange of views, unencumbered by fear of retaliation. Any unwarranted curtailment of this liberty compels the individual to conform to a state-sanctioned or otherwise prescribed narrative, thereby eroding the individual’s moral autonomy and impairing the ethical integrity of the body politic.”

Most rationally, the Bench while having earlier in this noteworthy judgment cited most relevant and recent case laws like Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2026) 1 SCC 721, Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 on the fundamental right of free speech and expression and as a corollary expounds in para 23 holding that, “In view of above, it is duty of court to uphold the Constitution including the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression and to thwart any attempt to undermine freedom of speech and expression. It is therefore necessary for courts to examine whether any objection to the speech or expression would violate fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of an individual. It is therefore imperative that whenever an issue is raised objecting to a particular speech or expression, courts are required to ensure that fundamental right of an individual is not taken away lightly and that restriction on speech and expression is reasonable.”

Be it noted, while referring to another recent and relevant case law titled Simran Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another : 2026:AHC:99125, the Bench notes in para 25 that, “Further this Court in paragraph no. 23 of judgment in Simran Gupta (supra) held that while examining whether a particular speech and expression is in violation of law or comes within the exception provided under Article 19 (2) of Constitution, courts are required to apply prudent person test. In law, prudent person is a hypothetical person, who in the facts and circumstances would conduct in a reasonable, just and fair manner. In order to apply aforesaid test, it is necessary that material particulars, circumstances and context are brought before Court to demonstrate that speech or expression violated Article 19(2) of Constitution of India and is an offence. Such material particulars and circumstance are also required to be placed before courts so that freedom of speech and expression of individual is not taken away lightly. Whenever fundamental right of an individual is being tested in terms of Article 19(2) of Constitution of India, strict interpretation is required to be made against taking away of such right and when a person approaches court of law to challenge speech or expression, burden should be placed on such person to demonstrate that such speech or expression is an offence or restricted by law. The insufficiency of ground for proceeding against an accused may also arise when material particulars and details in respect of alleged offence are absent in complaint/application.”  

Most strikingly, the Bench while striking a cautionary note points out in para 26 that, “The lodging of first information report has serious consequences on individual as the same may curtail liberty of an individual and therefore the courts are required to be very cautious while considering the application for lodging of first information report more particularly when lodging of first information report is sought on the ground of offending speech or expression. It is further to be noted that fundamental right protects any speech or expression except for reasonable restriction and therefore any law which declares any speech or expression as an offence must abide by the mandate of Constitution. In this context the sufficiency of material particulars and circumstances against an individual is of significant importance.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 27 that, “It is to be noted that once an application is filed for lodging of first information report before the court concerned for speech or expression being violative of law it is to be demonstrated by person approaching the court concerned to show that the alleged speech and expression comes within the ingredient of offence as well as that speech or expression is not protected by Article 19 of the Constitution.”

Quite remarkably, the Bench notes in para 28 that, “It is admitted case of applicants that respondent no. 2 is an elected representative and Member of Parliament. In that capacity, elected representative may articulate public concerns through diverse mediums. Elected representatives are chosen to carry the voice of people into the institutions of governance. Raising public concerns is therefore not an optional courtesy but a core function. Representatives also act as channel of public concerns, ensuring that less powerful sections are heard in public debate. Quite apart from this, every elected representative is also entitled, in their personal capacity, to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. When concerns are raised openly, in the legislature or in public forums, they enter the public record, inform citizens, and invite scrutiny of government action. This keeps democratic discourse alive and vibrant. Legislation and policy formed by such inputs tend to be more practical & responsive and such concerns are an aid for government for better governance and accountability. The concerns of elected representative or individual which keep government of the day informed turns an election from a one-time event into a continuing relationship of good governance and accountability.”

It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 29 that, “There may be concerns that the elected representative or an individual may through their speech and expression may enter area of reasonable restriction carved out under Article 19 (2) of Constitution. The elected representative or an individual is therefore required to exercise the right of freedom of speech and expression considering the restriction of Article 19 (2) of Constitution. If there is any breach of Article 19(2) of Constitution by any person then the law is required to take its own course.”

While striking a pragmatic note, the Bench notes in para 31 that, “It is the case of learned counsel for applicants that the above mentioned alleged speech on foreign soil by respondent no. 2 is provocative and can be understood from the fact that one terrorist from a separatist organisation has justified the statement of respondent no. 2 and has made easier the separatist movement. It is also stated that the aforesaid offending speech of respondent no. 2 will be used by terrorist to spread violence and anarchy by taking help of the statement of respondent no. 2 and spread propaganda against the country. Upon examination, the impugned speech of respondent no. 2 does not tend to incite violence or disturb public order. It merely articulates the concerns of a certain segment of society. If a third party misinterprets or appropriates the said speech to advance its own ends, the responsibility for any ensuing consequences lies exclusively with that party, which is amenable to the law for its own acts. No circumstances and material particulars have been shown before this Court to indicate that aforesaid speech has resulted in exciting, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. Further, applicants have also not shown before this Court as to how aforesaid speech is an attempt to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. The applicants have not shown as to the date, time and place when the alleged speech is made. The application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023 was preferred by applicants before court of first instance in September, 2024 however even after two year it has not been shown before this Court that the aforesaid speech has resulted in any of the mischief covered by Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complete extract of the alleged speech has not been brought before this Court although learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the newspaper report in this respect.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench points out in para 33 that, “The court of first instance by judgment dated 17.10.2025 has rejected the application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023 of applicants thereby held that no cognizable offence is made out. The said court has further held that no material ground or circumstances have been stated by applicants that respondent no. 2 speech endangers the sovereignty, integrity and unity of country. The aforesaid court has further recorded a finding that the application filed by applicants has not disclosed the date, time and place of alleged speech of respondent no. 2 on foreign soil. The revisional court by judgment dated 9.7.2026 has upheld the above-mentioned judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by the court of first instance.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 34 that, “The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 challenging the above-mentioned judgment dated 17.10.2025 and 9.7.2026 passed by the court of first instance and revisional court respectively is devoid of merits. In view of the above-mentioned reasoning, this Court is of the view that no cognizable offence is made out from the speech of respondent no. 2 which would require the lodging of the first information report and as such the impugned orders passed by the court concerned are not liable to be interfered by this Court. Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is hereby dismissed.”

In conclusion, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the plea for lodging FIR against Rahul Gandhi for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. Undoubtedly, Rahul Gandhi has won the legal battle as the petitioner have been unable to convince the Court of the merits of the arguments that they made. But to win electoral battle, it is my personal opinion that Rahul Gandhi needs to be very careful while speaking on any minority in USA and UK especially. My very best friend Sageer Khan in Mackronia locality in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh 33 years ago in 1993 while confiding in me termed USA and UK as “most horrendously dangerous countries in the world worst than even Shaitan” who add united before their name but always favour division of other countries especially India and who hate Hindus most as maximum freedom fighters were Hindus and among Hindus hate Sikh most as maximum freedom fighters of Hindus were Sikhs like Sardar Bhagat Singh and so coined Khalistan and maximum Sikhs killed in Hindustan in name of Khalistan and Punjab partitioned maximum and that time also Sikhs killed maximum and among Muslims hate Shias most as maximum freedom fighters of Muslims were Shias like Mohammad Ali Jinnah and so coined Pakistan and maximum Shias killed in Pakistan not safe even in mosques and in PoK also killed most ruthlessly and safest in Hindustan and trust Sunni most but mark my words said Sageer Khan Inshahallah it is only and only Sunni Muslims who will definitely combat, control, conquer and completely crush USA and UK who are root cause of all pains, problems and partitions and conversion and terrorism and then there will definitely peace, progress and prosperity all over and India will again become united as it stood before partition and UN who too add united before its name is most favourite pet dog of USA and UK just like Israel, China among others and Jawaharlal Nehru was right to refuse to become permanent member of UN Security Council which means permanent pet dog of USA and UK and I fail to understand why India now wants to become permanent pet dog of USA and UK even though they are just not interested in doing so! Even after 33 years, we see India still trying to become permanent member Of UN Security Council which Sageer Khan predicted that this can never happen no matter how much we beg before USA and UK because they hate Hindus most and India is a Hindu majority country whom they hate most and just cannot tolerate! Sageer Khan till date has been proven absolutely right as we are seeing also!