A Court in Varanasi has rejected an application seeking the registration of FIR against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in relation to the remarks made by him about religious freedom in India, in relation to the Sikh community. “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 gurdwara.
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,” Gandhi is reported to have said. In September 9, 2024 at an event in USA.
Later, a complainant, one Nageshwar Mishra, moved a magistrate in Varanasi seeking an FIR against him. He argued that the statement was provocative and intended to incite people to act in furtherance of Gandhi’s political interests. In the order passed on October 17, uploaded recently, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Niraj Kumar Tripathi observed that an FIR cannot be lodged merely on the basis of an apprehension that a crime may be committed.
It noted that Mishra had only expressed an apprehension that pro-Khalistan groups might misuse the statement to spread violence in India. However, the complainant failed to cite any concrete evidence or incident to support his claim, the Court found.
The judge also observed that the complainant had failed to mention the date, time, or place of the alleged speech in his application.
Pertinently, a Magistrate had initially refused to entertain the complaint without the requisite sanction from the Central government, as Gandhi had made the statement in the US.
However, an Additional District and Sessions Court in Varanasi on July 21 directed the magistrate to re-hear the plea, observing that a sanction under Section 208 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not required for the registration of an FIR or investigation, but only for inquiry and trial.
Rahul Gandhi then moved the High Court to quash the case, but failed to get any relief as the High Court agreed with the Sessions Court’s view. The complaint was then considered again by the trial court, which has now dismissed the same.
