Back
Dismisses Plea for FIR Against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Over Remarks
A Division Bench of the has dismissed a petition seeking direction to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, ruling that the petitioner failed to exhaust before invoking the court's under of the Constitution.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena, in their order dated , held that an aggrieved person must first approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under — the equivalent of — before rushing to the High Court for a .
Background: Allegations of Derogatory Remarks
The petition was filed by
, who claimed that on
, he saw a video on YouTube containing statements made by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya that allegedly referred to the 'Upadhyay' community as "नीच/अधम" (low/inferior) and described the four Shankaracharyas as 'फर्जी' (fake). The petitioner argued that these remarks caused
"grave mental agony, humiliation and insult"
to him and other members of the community, and also hurt the religious sentiments of Sanatana Dharma followers.
Upadhyay submitted a complaint to the , on , requesting registration of an FIR against Rambhadracharya under appropriate penal provisions. When the police took no action, he approached the High Court directly seeking a .
State's Objection: No Proof of Complaint
The State, represented by Government Advocate, opposed the petition on multiple grounds. It submitted that the petitioner had never approached the concerned police station and had directly invoked without availing the remedy under . The State also disputed the receipt of the October 8 letter, pointing out that no postal tracking or acknowledgment was placed on record to authenticate its delivery.
The State further argued that the petition was a , intended only to escalate the issue rather than seek genuine redress.
Court's Analysis: Primary Remedy Lies Before Magistrate
The High Court examined the statutory scheme and found that the petitioner had not even approached the or the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 173(4) and . Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409, the bench observed:
"This Court is of the considered view that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or that having been registered, a proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under of the Constitution , but to approach the Magistrate concerned under [ ]."
The Court emphasized that the Magistrate has "very wide powers" to direct registration of an FIR and even monitor the investigation, and that this remedy is
"not merely an alternative, instead, it is the
that must be exhausted before approaching the High Court."
The bench also referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra (2026 INSC 442), which reaffirmed that under cannot be used to compel FIR registration where exist and have not been exhausted.
Growing Trend of Bypassing
Expressing concern, the Court noted a "growing trend" of litigants directly approaching the High Court under for FIR registration without first exhausting remedies under the BNSS. The bench warned that such practice undermines the legislative intent and treats the High Court as a forum of , which is impermissible.
While acknowledging that the is part of Article 21, the Court observed:
"This Court fully appreciates that the right to a fair investigation is part of the right to life and personal liberty under , sympathy cannot override procedure."
The Court clarified that the Constitution Bench judgment in does not sanction bypassing . "What Lalita Kumari does not sanction is the bypassing of the available to an aggrieved person when the police fail to discharge their ," the Court said.
Decision: Petition Dismissed with Liberty
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, but granted the petitioner liberty to avail appropriate remedy under law, including approaching the Magistrate under .
The order serves as a strong reminder that litigants must follow the — police station, , and Magistrate — before invoking the High Court's in matters concerning FIR registration.
