In a significant development, a special MP-MLA court in Varanasi has set aside an order passed by a chief judicial magistrate (CJM) court that had dismissed a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Leader of the Opposition and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi. The petition pertains to remarks allegedly made by Gandhi regarding Lord Ram.
Court's Directive
The special court, presided over by Additional District and Sessions Judge (MP-MLA) Yajuvendra Vikram Singh, directed the CJM (MP-MLA) to reconsider the petition filed by local advocate Harishankar Pandey. The court instructed that a fresh order be passed in accordance with the law after a thorough examination of relevant legal precedents.
Background of the Case
The CJM court had dismissed the petition in May 2025, citing a lack of prior sanction from the central government or a competent authority, which is a legal requirement for such cases. The petition was deemed non-maintainable on those grounds.
Pandey had sought the registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi for comments made during an interaction at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University in the United States in 2025. During that interaction, Gandhi allegedly referred to Lord Ram as a “mythological and fictional character.” The petitioner argued that these remarks deeply hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Sanatani Hindus.
Legal Provisions Invoked
The plea sought action under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including:
- Section 196: Promoting enmity between different groups
- Section 351: Criminal intimidation
- Section 353: Statements conducing to public mischief
- Section 356: Defamation
Additionally, the petition called for summoning Rahul Gandhi to face legal proceedings.
Implications
The special court's decision to overturn the earlier dismissal and order a fresh hearing indicates that the judiciary is taking the matter seriously. The case now returns to the CJM court, which must evaluate the petition on its merits, considering the legal arguments and precedents presented.
This development comes amid ongoing political tensions, with the opposition and ruling parties frequently clashing over remarks made by leaders. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how such complaints are handled in the future.
