Allahabad HC Rejects Rahul Gandhi Plea in Sikh Remarks Case

Allahabad

Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea in Sikh Remarks Case, Clears Path for Trial in Varanasi

Court says magistrate must reconsider plea for FIR over Gandhi’s US speech on Sikhs

Leader of Opposition faces legal setback as case moves forward in Varanasi MP/MLA court

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: September 27, 2025: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, who sought relief against proceedings in a case linked to his remarks about the Sikh community during a 2024 visit to the United States.

Justice Sameer Jain upheld an earlier order of the Varanasi MP/MLA Special Court, which had directed a magistrate to re-examine a plea seeking registration of an FIR against Gandhi. The ruling is a legal setback for the Congress leader and paves the way for the case to proceed in Varanasi.

The Origin of the Case

The controversy began in September 2024, when Rahul Gandhi, speaking at an event in Virginia, USA, reportedly said that Sikhs in India faced difficulties in practising their faith. He allegedly remarked that Sikhs were not being allowed to wear turbans, carry the kara (steel bracelet), or freely enter gurdwaras.

Varanasi resident Nageshwar Mishra filed a complaint, claiming the remarks were provocative, divisive, and harmful to communal harmony. He argued that Gandhi’s comments painted a false picture of India abroad and could incite unrest.

Initially, in November 2024, the magistrate’s court in Varanasi dismissed Mishra’s plea, citing lack of jurisdiction since the alleged remarks were made outside India. However, Mishra filed a revision petition before the MP/MLA Special Court, which in July 2025 overturned the magistrate’s order and directed a fresh hearing.

Gandhi’s Petition in Allahabad High Court

Rahul Gandhi challenged the Varanasi court’s order in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that:

The complaint did not specify the exact date of the alleged remarks.
His speech was being taken out of context.
A single sentence could not be isolated from an entire speech to claim provocation.
Since the remarks were made abroad, sanction from the Central Government was required before any proceedings could begin.

Senior advocate Gopal Chaturvedi, appearing for Gandhi, stressed that the speech was not intended to provoke division but to highlight broader issues of religious freedom.

State’s Counter-Arguments

The Uttar Pradesh government, represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, opposed Gandhi’s plea. The state argued that:

Gandhi’s position as Leader of Opposition gave his words significant weight, both in India and abroad.
His remarks were provocative and divisive, capable of disturbing communal harmony.
The magistrate should decide whether a prima facie case exists, not the High Court.
Since Gandhi admitted to making the remarks, the matter required investigation.

High Court’s Decision

After hearing both sides, Justice Sameer Jain dismissed Gandhi’s petition. The Court observed that:

The revisional court in Varanasi had acted correctly in remanding the matter back to the magistrate.
The magistrate must now reconsider the FIR application considering legal precedents.
The High Court would not interfere at this stage, as the issue of whether a prima facie case exists must be decided by the lower court.

This means the case will now proceed before the Varanasi MP/MLA court, where the magistrate will re-examine whether an FIR should be registered against Gandhi.

Political and Legal Significance

The ruling is significant for several reasons:

Legal Precedent: It reinforces the principle that courts must carefully examine whether remarks made abroad can form the basis of criminal proceedings in India.
Political Impact: As Leader of Opposition, Gandhi’s words are closely scrutinized. The case adds to his ongoing legal challenges, including defamation cases.
Religious Sensitivity: The Sikh community has historically been sensitive to political remarks, and the case highlights the importance of responsible speech by public figures.
Jurisdictional Questions: The case raises complex questions about whether Indian courts can try offences allegedly committed outside India without prior government sanction.

Reactions

Legal experts noted that the High Court’s decision does not mean Gandhi is guilty but that the legal process must continue.
Political analysts said the ruling could be used by Gandhi’s opponents to question his statements on foreign soil.
Supporters of Gandhi argued that his remarks were misinterpreted and that the case is politically motivated.

Broader Context

This is not the first time Rahul Gandhi has faced legal trouble over his speeches. In recent years, he has been embroiled in multiple defamation and criminal cases arising from his political statements.

The case also reflects a broader trend where political speeches made abroad are increasingly being scrutinized in Indian courts. With leaders often addressing international audiences, their words can have both diplomatic and domestic consequences.

What Happens Next

The matter now returns to the Varanasi magistrate’s court, which will decide whether to order registration of an FIR. If an FIR is registered, Gandhi could face a criminal trial under provisions related to promoting enmity or disturbing communal harmony.

The case is expected to be closely watched, given Gandhi’s political stature and the sensitivity of the Sikh community issue.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of Rahul Gandhi’s plea marks a turning point in the Sikh remarks case. While Gandhi has not been convicted of any offence, the ruling ensures that the legal process will continue in Varanasi.

For Gandhi, it is a reminder that his words—especially on foreign soil—carry significant legal and political consequences. For the judiciary, it is another test of how India balances freedom of speech, religious sensitivity, and political accountability.