Govt Criticism No Offence; 'Fight' Against Ideology Distinct From Inciting Rebellion: Allahabad HC Refuses FIR Against Rahul Gandhi
Dismissing a plea for FIR against LoP in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged 'Fighting Indian State' remark, the Allahabad High Court today observed that in a parliamentary democracy, criticism of government action or policies is not only permitted but essential.The Court stressed that criticism or ideological difference may not, by itself, constitute an offence, noting that an...
Dismissing a plea for FIR against LoP in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged 'Fighting Indian State' remark, the Allahabad High Court today observed that in a parliamentary democracy, criticism of government action or policies is not only permitted but essential.
The Court stressed that criticism or ideological difference may not, by itself, constitute an offence, noting that an elected representative who declares a commitment to fight against a particular policy or ideology is distinct from a person inciting a rebellion.
"In the context of elected representative, in natural course of events and conduct, the word 'fight' may signify intense advocacy, persistence or opposition (rather than physical combact), against policy, thought or ideology of opponent or particular person," a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan observed.
The single judge thus DISMISSED a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a Sambhal Court order refusing to direct lodging of an FIR against Gandhi.
Gandhi had allegedly stated in a televised interview that his "fight is with an organization, political party as well as Indian State".
Noting that it is necessary to examine the speaker's background and the context of the statement, the single judge observed that Gandhi is an elected representative and he made the remarks during an interview and hence, the same constituted a normal course of event which was protected under the fundamental right to free speech.
Before the bench, the petitioner had contended that Gandhi made the offending statement, thereby threatening the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the Indian State. It was also her case that the same would create instability and a sense of rebellion in society.
She further claimed that the statement disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 152 BNS [Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India] and that the court of first instance, as well as the revisional court, erred in law by refusing to accept her prayer to direct for the lodging of an FIR against him.
Rejecting her petition, the High Court emphasized that suspicion cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution. The bench observed that the petitioner had completely failed to bring forth any material particulars or circumstances to show that the speech explicitly called for secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities as defined under Section 152 of the BNS.
The bench added that whenever a speech is challenged, it enjoys the protective umbrella of the Constitution unless the complainant can demonstrate that it falls strictly within the ambit of reasonable restrictions.
"The burden of proof in this respect rest upon person approaching courts to show that alleged speech or expression comes within the term reasonable restriction and is not protected by Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution," the bench noted.
The bench also added that whenever an issue is raised objecting to a particular speech or expression, courts are required to be vigilant to ensure that the fundamental right of an individual is not taken away lightly, or restrictions on speech and expression are reasonable.
The Court also underscored that whenever an issue is raised objecting to a particular speech or expression, courts must remain vigilant to ensure that an individual's fundamental rights are not taken away lightly.
The advancement of democracy, the bench observed, relies on the exchange of views; restricting freedom of speech reduces an individual to an approved narrative and undermines their moral polity.
Referring to the Shreya Singhal Judgment, the bench stressed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, however unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement, then it may amount to an offence.
Highlighting the role of elected representatives as the bridge between citizens and the government, the Court opined that lawmakers can voice their concerns through various mediums and they also have an individual right to freedom of speech and expression.
Against this backdrop, the bench examined the alleged remark, noting that the phrase was preceded by words indicating a fight with an independent organization and a political party. The bench concluded that the applicant failed to show how the speech incited separatist feelings or endangered the nation's unity.
"No circumstances and material particulars have been shown before this Court to indicate that the 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," the Court remarked as it dismissed the petition.
Case title - Simran Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 255
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 255