Varanasi Court Sets Aside Magistrate's Order Refusing FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Over 'Lord Ram Mythological Figure' Remark; Directs Fresh Hearing

A Special MP-MLA court in Varanasi today set aside a Magistrate Court's order that had dismissed a complaint seeking registration of an FIR against Congress leader and LoP in LokSabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged remark on Lord Rama, referring to him as a 'mythological' figure during an interactive session in the US in 2025 Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Yajuvendra Vikram Singh, while hearing a revision plea, directed the concerned Magistrate to hear the matter afresh in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court and thereafter, pass an order. "The order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint No. 28227/2025Harishankar Pandey vs. Rahul Gandhi and others is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to conduct a fresh hearing in the light of this revision decision and in view of the principles laid down by the High Courts and ensure passing of the order as per law", the order's operative part reads. In its 10-page order, the Sessions Court noted that the Magistrate, in the impugned order, had relied on Sections 208 and 217 of the BNSS to dismiss the complaint at the stage of admission.The impugned order stated that, since the alleged offence occurred outside India (in New York) and was against the state, prior sanction from the Central Government, State Government, or District Magistrate was mandatory before proceedings could be initiated.Differing with this view, the Sessions Court noted that the requirement for government sanction under Section 208 BNSS applies to the trial stage, not at the initial cognizance or inquiry stage. In this regard, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court's judgments in Ajay Agarwal vs Union of India and Ors and Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh to note that a sanction is not required at the stage of cognizance."...it is clear that until cognizance of a case is taken, prior sanction of the Central Government is not required under the proviso to Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, but after cognizance, the trial cannot be commenced until the sanction of the Central Government is obtained," the Sessions Court noted.Furthermore, relying upon Section 223 BNSS, the Court highlighted that merely registering a complaint does not equate to taking cognizance of an offence."The restriction of Sections 208 and 217 BNSS is on taking cognizance without the prior permission of the Central Government/State Government/District Magistrate. Since, according to the provisions of Section 223 BNSS, in the matter of a complaint, cognizance will be taken only after the evidence presented by the complainant and an opportunity of hearing being given to the proposed accused. In such a situation, cognizance of the offence is not taken merely at the initial stage of the registration of the complaint", the Court observed.Against this backdrop, the Court observed that the restriction under Sections 208 and 217 BNSS is strictly on taking cognizance without prior permission. Therefore, it concluded that "at the initial stage of the registration of the complaint, it cannot be rejected on the basis of the restriction of Section 208 and 217 BNSS".Briefly put, the revision plea was filed by Advocate Hari Shankar Pandey, challenging the Chief Judicial Magistrate's November 28, 2024, order, wherein his plea for FIR registration against Rahul Gandhi was rejected. For context, the complaint alleged that Gandhi has been continuously making absurd statements about the previous incarnations and great symbols of Sanatan Dharma and that he keeps insulting the Hindus who believe in Sanatan Dharma, and this amounts to hate speech. The complaint also referred to the April 2025 remarks made by the Supreme Court expressing disapproval of Gandhi's alleged comments against VD Savarkar. "MP Rahul Gandhi and the Indian National Congress have become habitual offenders of such acts. In the matter concerning the great freedom fighter Veer Savarkar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had strongly reprimanded Shri Rahul Gandhi (Member of Parliament and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha) and his party. However, these people refuse to mend their ways. They continue to make baseless and offensive remarks about the incarnations and great symbols of Sanatan Dharma, thereby insulting Hindus who follow Sanatan Dharma. By delivering hate speech, they have committed a serious criminal offense", the criminal complaint stated. Importantly, the complaint argued that Gandhi's act becomes even more despicable when the Supreme Court of India, in its Ram Janmabhoomi dispute Judgment, has recognised the existence of Shri Ram Lalla. Against this backdrop, Pandey had prayed in his plea that Gandhi be summoned to face severe punishment for the offences committed under Sections 356, 351, 353 and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).Click Here To Read/Download Order

Varanasi Court Sets Aside Magistrate's Order Refusing FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Over 'Lord Ram Mythological Figure' Remark; Directs Fresh Hearing

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Varanasi Court Sets Aside Magistrate's Order Refusing FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Over 'Lord Ram Mythological Figure' Remark; Directs Fresh Hearing

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers