Varanasi Court Rejects BJP Leader's Plea Seeking FIR Registration Against Rahul Gandhi Over His Cambridge University Speech

Sparsh Upadhyay

23 March 2023 1:37 PM GMT

  • Varanasi Court Rejects BJP Leaders Plea Seeking FIR Registration Against Rahul Gandhi Over His Cambridge University Speech

    A Court in Uttar Pradesh's Varanasi district has REJECTED the application of a BJP Leader seeking registration of an FIR against Congres Leader and MP Rahul Gandhi over his February 2023 Cambridge University speech.The application alleging that Gandhi made statements against the Unity and Soveritnity of India was dismissed by the Court of ACJM Ujjawal Upadhyay by observing that the...

    A Court in Uttar Pradesh's Varanasi district has REJECTED the application of a BJP Leader seeking registration of an FIR against Congres Leader and MP Rahul Gandhi over his February 2023 Cambridge University speech.

    The application alleging that Gandhi made statements against the Unity and Soveritnity of India was dismissed by the Court of ACJM Ujjawal Upadhyay by observing that the alleged statements do not exceed the prescribed limits of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

    The application under Sectio 156 (3) CrPC was moved by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Tripathi, also a BJP leader alleging that Gandhi's statements were divisive and against the spirit of the Constitution of India. The application also stated that Gandhi compared a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to a terrorist organization, Muslim Brotherhood, due to which, the sentiments of more than 10 crore swayamsevaks were hurt.

    The BJP leader also alleged that Gandhi's statements are a part of the conspiracy to divide the people of the country on the basis of Caste, religion, etc, and that his statements amounted to hate speech.

    Further, his application sought registration of an FIR against Gandhi for violating various provisions of the IPC including Sections 120B, 147, 153A, 295A, 295.

    Having perused the content of the application, and averments made therein, the Court did not find the alleged statements as exceeding the prescribed limits of the right to freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, the application was rejected.


    Next Story