Remarks On Sikhs | Rahul Gandhi Projected Opposition's Views Abroad; Magistrate To Decide If Offences Made Out : UP Govt To Allahabad High Court

Opposing LoP Rahul Gandhi's plea concerning his alleged remarks on Sikhs, the Uttar Pradesh Government today argued before the Allahabad High Court that the magistrate must be allowed to apply his 'independent mind' to assess whether a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against him. Before a bench of Justice Sameer Jain, the state submitted that in revisional jurisdiction, the courts are not permitted to look into the defence, and if the magistrate feels that a cognizable offence is made out, he may direct registration of an FIR. Importantly, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal strongly argued that Gandhi made the alleged statements as a leader of opposition, holding a place of responsibility, and being known as the voice of opposition. "It has not been pointed out that he is also the leader of the opposition; he is known outside the country as such. His voice is the voice of the opposition. The opposition has this view regarding the rights of minorities in the country, and this is what they are projecting on foreign soil", he submitted. For context, Gandhi has moved the HC challenging an order of the Varanasi Court directing a re-hearing of a plea seeking registration of an FIR against him over his alleged remarks on Sikhs made during his trip to the United States. Dealing with the revision plea, the Addl. District & Sessions Court in the impugned order had opined that the Magistrate had erred in dismissing the application solely on the ground that no prior sanction had been obtained from the Central Government under Section 208 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 188 CrPC) since the alleged offence occurred outside India. Earlier today, Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi (appearing for Gandhi) submitted that Gandhi had not incited the Sikh community to rise in rebellion and that the court did not consider his entire speech to gather his intent. He had also submitted that the intention, whether Gandhi wanted to wage war against the government, can't be deciphered from some stray sentence, which is a part of the speech. He added that even the Supreme Court says that one stray sentence here and there cannot be considered. "What I said before this, what I said after this, is not mentioned...Based on 25 words, mens rea can't be seen...Unless the entire speech is before the court, the intention cannot be attributed", he argued. He also argued that the Sessions Court had not taken into account the points argued by Gandhi's counsel and that the order impugned was confined to Section 208 BNSS instead of addressing the threshold argument as to whether a cognizable offence was made out or not.More about his submissions here: Sikh Remarks Row | Didn't Incite Sikhs To Rise In Rebellion; Intent Can't Be Inferred From Stray Sentence: Rahul Gandhi Submits In Allahabad HC Opposing his submissions, AAG Goyal submitted that the earlier rejection of the plea for an FIR "was vitiated on the ground of the sanction required under S. 208 BNSS", which the sessions judge had set aside, leaving only the application to be decided on merits by the magistrate. He emphasised, "Now, the magistrate is only required to determine whether a cognizable offence has been committed and direct accordingly". At the point, he also said that in the revisional jurisdiction, the sessions court or the HC cannot exercise the powers of the magistrate, who has to decide whether an FIR should be filed against him. On the alleged speech, the AAG maintained that Gandhi's counsel did not deny that the alleged statements were part of the larger address, and this was a candid admission. "It has been argued that the alleged speech is a passage of a larger speech; the statements have not been denied. It is there (as a part of the larger speech). … It is a candid admission that is the statement, whether it has been torn or not, it is a matter of consideration", he submitted. Furthermore, linking responsibility to culpability, he argued: "He (Gandhi) made the statements as a leader of opposition, holding a place of responsibility…If it is against the people of India, then yes, an offence is made out". Having heard the counsels for both parties, the bench reserved the order on Gandhi's revision plea and expected the Magistrate not to proceed in the matter until the judgment is delivered.Background of the matterAn Addl. District & Sessions Court in Varanasi in July set aside a Magistrate Court's order that had dismissed a plea seeking registration of FIR against Congress leader and LoP in LokSabha Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks on Sikhs made during his US trip in September 2024.Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Yajuvendra Vikram Singh, while hearing a revision plea, directed the Magistrate concerned to hear the matter afresh in light of Supreme Court precedents and then pass an order.Briefly, the revision plea was filed by Nageshwar...

Remarks On Sikhs | Rahul Gandhi Projected Opposition's Views Abroad; Magistrate To Decide If Offences Made Out : UP Govt To Allahabad High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags