In a very major jolt to Rahul Gandhi who is the 12th Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha from Congress, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Rahul Gandhi vs State of UP and Another in Criminal Revision No. - 4946 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC:175557 that was reserved on 3.9.2025 and then finally pronounced on 26.9.2025 has dismissed a petition that had been filed by Rahul Gandhi against a Varanasi court order on a plea pertaining to his remarks about religious freedom in India in context of Sikh community which cannot at all be justified under any circumstances as there is not even an iota of truth in it! Rahul was in the USA last year in 2024 when he had made the specious comment about religious freedom in context of Sikh community in India which drew sharp criticism also as there was absolutely just no basis in it. Later, a complainant moved a Magistrate seeking a first information report (FIR) against him.

However, the Magistrate refused to entertain it without the requisite sanction from the Central government as the statement was made in the USA. An Additional District and Sessions Court in Varanasi on July 21 directed the Magistrate to re-hear the plea observing that sanction under Section 208 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not required for registration of the FIR or investigation but for inquiry and trial. Rahul then moved the Allahabad High Court which in the final order rejected Rahul’s plea.

According to media reports, Rahul Gandhi while addressing a Sikh member at an event on September 9 had said in USA that:
The fight is about whether he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear a turban in India; or whether, he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear a ‘kada’ in India; or he, as a Sikh, is going to be able to go to a gurudwara. That’s what the fight is about, and not just for him, but for all religions… We are of the opinion that every state, tradition and language is as important as any other one.” Every patriotic Indian will undoubtedly strongly condemn such absurd comments because Sikhs even carry kirpans with them and PM Narendra Modi among other leaders wear turban most proudly while visiting Gurudwaras as we keep seeing also in news channels which is not hidden from anyone. No denying or disputing it!

Subsequently, the complaint against Rahul Gandhi was filed by Nageshwar Mishra. He claimed that Gandhi had said there is an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India. Mishra alleged that the statement was provocative and intended to incite people to act in furtherance of Gandhi’s political interests.

He also claimed that similar ‘propaganda’ was spread by Gandhi during a rally organized at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on December 14, 2019, which culminated in a massive protest at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi , which tragically ended in violence and anarchy. After the Magistrate had refused to entertain his plea, Mishra had approached the Sessions Court which allowed his plea with direction for a fresh decision. The matter will now again proceed before the Magistrate.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Sameer Jain of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Court No. 5, Varanasi in Crl. Revision No. 61 of 2025 (Nageshwar Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), under sections 147, 148 & 152 of BNS-2023, Police Station-Sarnath, District Varanasi.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 3 that:
On 26.9.2024, opposite party no. 2 moved an application u/s 173(4) BNSS against the revisionist before learned Magistrate.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 stating that, “According to the application dated 26.9.2024 revisionist who is opposition leader of the Country during his USA visit gave highly objectionable statement that there is insecure environment for Sikh community in India and whether they will be permitted to follow their religious traditions or not and Sikh community also raised objection on the statement given by the revisionist because his statement is for promoting animosity between the groups and the statement given by the revisionist was provocative.”

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 5 that:
According to the opposite party no. 2 the statement of the revisionist was the act of endangering the sovereignty of Country and was an attempt to wage war against Government of India and revisionist conspired for civil war.”

Further, the Bench states in para 6 that:
It is further mentioned in the application dated 26.9.2024 that on 14.12.2019 in Delhi also revisionist during agitation against C.A.A. in a rally gave such speech due to which more than 100 persons lost their lives.”

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 7 that:
In the application dated 26.9.2024 opposite party no. 2 made a prayer to direct the concerned S.H.O. of police station to lodge FIR against the revisionist and investigate the matter.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 8 disclosing that:
On 28.11.2024 learned Magistrate dismissed the application moved by opposite party no. 2 under section 173(4) BNSS on the ground that as revisionist gave the statement outside India, therefore, in view of Section 208 BNSS sanction was necessary for registration of the case against him which is not on record and with regard to the speech dated 14.12.2019 delivered by revisionist in Delhi during C.A.A. agitation, prima facie, no cognizable offence is made out against him.”

Truth be told, the Bench then lays bare in para 9 observing that:
Against the order dated 28.11.2024 opposite party no. 2 preferred criminal revision before sessions judge and sessions court allowed the revision filed by him vide impugned order dated 21.7.2025 and remitted back the matter to learned Magistrate to decide it afresh.”

It merits mentioning that the Bench observes in para 40 that:
By way of instant revision, revisionist challenged the order dated 21.7.2025 passed by the lower revisional court by which lower revisional court allowed the revision filed by opposite party No. 2 and set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned magistrate concerned and remitted back the matter for fresh decision.”

Going ahead, the Bench then specifies in para 41 stating that:
From the impugned order dated 21.7.2025, however, it reflects, it is remand order but considering the fact that while passing the same the lower revisional court allowed the revision filed by the opposite party no. 2 after disturbing the finding recorded by the learned magistrate, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 is an interlocutory order and therefore, in view of this Court against the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 the instant revision is maintainable.”

Notably, the Bench then notes in para 42 that:
From the record, it reflects that on 26.9.2024 opposite party no. 2 moved an application against the revisionist who is sitting Member of Parliament and is leader of opposition in Lok Sabha under section 173(4) BNSS on the ground that revisionist given a statement in U.S.A. and considering his statement he committed offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 152 BNS and therefore, a direction be given to lodge FIR against him and to investigate the matter but vide order dated 28.11.2024 learned Magistrate dismissed his application on the ground that as per section 208 BNSS for registration and investigation of the case, sanction is required. Against the order dated 28.11.2024 when opposite party no. 2 preferred criminal revision before the sessions court then learned lower revisional court vide impugned order dated 21.7.2025 allowed the revision filed by him and set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the magistrate and remitted back the matter for fresh decision on the ground that however, under section 208 BNSS sanction is required but not for registration of the FIR and for investigation of the matter rather for inquiry and trial. Considering the provisions of section 208 BNSS the observation made by the lower revisional court cannot be said to be illegal. Even learned counsel for revisionist admitted that sanction is not required under section 208 BNSS for registration and investigation of the case.”

It is worth mentioning that the Bench mentions in para 43 that:
It appears, revisionist is aggrieved with the remand order as according to him there was no need to remit the matter back to magistrate and revisional court itself could record the finding from the application dated 26.9.2024 moved by the opposite party no. 2, whether any cognizable offence against the revisionist is made out or not including offences under sections 147, 148, 152 BNS but in spite of that no finding has been recorded by lower revisional court in this regard and therefore, according to revisionist impugned order dated 21.7.2025 is illegal.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 50 that:
Therefore, it appears, it was incumbent upon lower revisional court to check the correctness and legality of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned magistrate concerned and as according to the revisional court the finding recorded by learned magistrate was erroneous, therefore, lower revisional court rightly set aside the order dated 28.11.2024 and remitted back the matter and therefore, it cannot be said that while passing the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 lower revisional court committed any illegality.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench points out in para 51 that, “Further, from the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned magistrate, it reflects that while dismissing the application moved by opposite party no. 2 under section 173(4) BNSS no finding was recorded whether from the statement of revisionist given at U.S.A., any cognizable offence is made out or not and his application was dismissed mainly on the ground of requirement of sanction, therefore, in view of this Court, it was not required for lower revisional court to give such finding of facts on merit while passing the impugned order dated 21.7.2025.”

Truly speaking, the Bench propounds in para 52 holding that:
As already observed, there is no illegality in the impugned order and therefore, it cannot be set aside. Thus, this Court after setting aside the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 cannot record any finding on its own whether from the application moved under section 173(4) BNSS any cognizable offence is made or not.”

What’s more, the Bench then states in para 53 that:
In considered view of this Court, learned magistrate concerned before him the application under section 173(4) BNSS has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 is empowered to decide whether from the application moved by opposite party no. 2 any cognizable offence is made out against the revisionist or not.”

Most rationally, the Bench then mandates in para 54 holding that:
Needless to say that if any application under section 173(4) BNSS is moved against an individual then before giving direction to register the case and to investigate the matter, it is necessary for the magistrate concerned to record the finding whether any cognizable offence against said individual is made out or not as for registration of the FIR and to investigate the matter, it is necessary that a cognizable offence is made out.”

Resultantly and most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 55 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
Therefore, from the discussion made above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.7.2025 passed by the lower revisional court and therefore, the instant revision is devoid of merit.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding aptly in para 56 that:
Accordingly, instant revision stands dismissed.” Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh