Allahabad High Court Upholds Varanasi Court's Order for Re-hearing on FIR Against Rahul Gandhi

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, declining to interfere with a lower court's order that directed a Magistrate to reconsider a plea for registering an FIR against him. The case stems from alleged remarks concerning the Sikh community made by Gandhi during a visit to the United States.

In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, a single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain affirmed the legality of a Varanasi Sessions Court's decision to remit the matter back to the Magistrate. The High Court clarified the scope of a Magistrate's duty when assessing an application for an FIR and the distinct requirements for sanction in cases involving alleged offenses committed abroad.

The judgment in Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. and Another (2025:AHC:175557) underscores a critical procedural point: the necessity for a Magistrate to first determine if a prima facie cognizable offense is made out before delving into other issues like the requirement for governmental sanction for trial.

---

Factual Matrix and Procedural Journey

The legal battle began after a complaint was filed by Nageshwar Mishra in Varanasi, seeking the registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi. The complainant alleged that during a trip to the United States in September 2024, Gandhi made provocative and divisive statements. According to the complaint, Gandhi questioned whether Sikhs in India felt secure, which the complainant argued was an act intended to promote animosity between groups, endanger national sovereignty, and incite unrest. The complaint sought registration of an FIR for offenses under Sections 147, 148, and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

On November 28, 2024, the concerned Magistrate in Varanasi dismissed the application filed under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The dismissal was based on a singular ground: since the alleged statement was made outside India, the proviso to Section 208 of the BNSS necessitated prior sanction from the Central Government to inquire into or try the offense. As no such sanction was on record, the Magistrate rejected the plea.

The complainant, Nageshwar Mishra, challenged this dismissal by filing a revision petition before the Additional District & Sessions Court in Varanasi. In a detailed order on July 21, 2025, the Sessions Court found the Magistrate's reasoning to be erroneous. The revisional court held that the Magistrate had incorrectly applied the sanction requirement under Section 208 BNSS, which pertains to the stages of inquiry and trial, not the preliminary stage of FIR registration and investigation. Consequently, the Sessions Court set aside the Magistrate's order and remitted the case for a fresh hearing, directing the Magistrate to pass a new order in light of established legal principles.

It was this order of the Varanasi Sessions Court that Rahul Gandhi challenged before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the revisional court had committed a legal error by remanding the matter instead of deciding it on merits.

Arguments Before the High Court

Senior Advocate Alok Ranjan Mishra, representing Rahul Gandhi, advanced two primary arguments. First, he contended that since all the material was before the Sessions Court, it should have decided whether the alleged statement constituted a cognizable offense rather than remitting it back to the Magistrate. This remand, he argued, was an illegality.

Second, counsel placed reliance on a series of Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark decision in Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar , to argue that the statement attributed to Gandhi did not amount to waging war against the government or any other cognizable offense under the alleged sections of the BNS. The core of this argument was that the Sessions Court could have, and should have, quashed the proceedings entirely based on the merits.

Interestingly, Gandhi's counsel conceded the point that sanction under Section 208 BNSS is not a prerequisite for the registration of an FIR or for investigation, a key finding of the Sessions Court.

High Court's Rationale and Judgment

Justice Sameer Jain, in a meticulously reasoned order, found no illegality in the decision of the lower revisional court. The High Court's decision pivoted on the distinct roles of the Magistrate and the revisional court in the criminal justice framework.

The Court first affirmed the Sessions Court's interpretation of Section 208 BNSS. Citing the provision and the admission by the petitioner's own counsel, Justice Jain noted, "the observation made by the Lower Revisional Court cannot be said to be illegal and even the Counsel for Rahul Gandhi admitted that sanction is not required under Section 208 BNSS for registration and investigation of the case."

The central pillar of the judgment was the Court's analysis of the revisional powers under Section 438 of the BNSS. Justice Jain observed that this section empowers a superior court to examine the "correctness, legality or propriety of any finding" of an inferior court. In this case, the Magistrate's finding was solely that the application was not maintainable for want of sanction. He had failed to record any finding on the fundamental question: whether the facts alleged disclosed a prima facie cognizable offense.

The High Court held that the revisional court's primary duty was to correct this legal error. Justice Jain stated, "...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..."

The Court firmly rejected the argument that the Sessions Court should have decided the matter on merits. It emphasized the procedural propriety of having the Magistrate, the court of first instance, make the initial determination. The High Court observed:

"...if any application under Section 173(4) of the 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."

Since the Magistrate had never applied his mind to this crucial question, the High Court concluded that the revisional court was correct in not usurping that function. "It was not required for lower revisional court to give such finding of facts on merit while passing the impugned order," the bench concluded, thereby validating the remand.

Legal Implications and Takeaways

The Allahabad High Court's decision serves as an important judicial clarification on several aspects of pre-trial criminal procedure under the new criminal codes:

1. Sanction vs. FIR Registration: The ruling reinforces the established principle (migrated from the CrPC to the BNSS) that the requirement of government sanction for prosecuting offenses committed abroad applies to the stages of inquiry and trial, not to the initial step of registering an FIR and conducting an investigation. This distinction is vital for allowing law enforcement agencies to gather evidence without preliminary procedural hurdles.

2. Magistrate's Duty under Sec. 173(4) BNSS: The judgment highlights the non-mechanical nature of a Magistrate's role when considering an application to direct the police to register an FIR. The Magistrate must conduct a preliminary assessment to satisfy himself that the allegations, if taken at face value, make out a cognizable offense. Bypassing this step, as was done in this case, is a procedural flaw.

3. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction: The decision delineates the boundaries of a revisional court's power. While the court can correct legal and procedural errors, it should exercise restraint and not step into the shoes of the trial court to decide factual merits, especially when the lower court has not yet considered them. The remand was deemed appropriate to ensure the proper procedural hierarchy is followed.

With the High Court's dismissal of the petition, the matter now returns to the Magistrate's court in Varanasi. The Magistrate will have to hear the application afresh and decide, based on the complaint and supporting materials, whether a prima facie cognizable offense is made out against Rahul Gandhi, warranting the registration of an FIR. This sets the stage for the first substantive judicial examination of the content and context of his alleged remarks.