Back
Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Rahul Gandhi over Savarkar remarks due to lack of sanction
The on Friday handed a significant victory to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, all criminal proceedings against him for his 2022 remarks describing Hindutva ideologue V.D. Savarkar as a "British collaborator." A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that the prosecution could not proceed because the had failed to grant the required under the for offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (public mischief) of the .
The ruling effectively sets aside the issued by a Lucknow magistrate in and ends a legal ordeal that had seen the case bounce between lower courts and the for over three years. The bench observed that the State's affidavit did not disclose any sanction having been grated, and therefore the orders passed by the magistrate were unsustainable.
Background: A Remark that Sparked a Legal Battle
The controversy arose on , during Rahul Gandhi's Bharat Jodo Yatra when he referred to Savarkar as someone who collaborated with the British and received a pension from them. Advocate Nripendra Pandey filed a criminal complaint before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Lucknow, alleging that the remarks were intended to incite hatred and create ill-will between communities. Padey also pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi had previously called Savarkar a patriot, implying that Rahul Gandhi's statement was deliberately provocative.
The ACJM initially dismissed the complaint in , finding no case. However, the sessions court, on appeal by Pandey, reversed that order and remaded the matter back to the magistrate. In , the magistrate issued a to Gandhi, observing that his remarks had spread hatred and ill-will in society and that a case existed under Sections 153A and 505 IPC.
Refuses Relief
Gandhi challenged the before the , but on , Justice Subhash Vidyarthi declined to intervene. The High Court noted that Gandhi had the of approaching the sessions judge under Section 397 CrPC for revision of the magistrate's order. This pushed Gandhi to seek the of the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Supreme Court's Reasoning: Lack of Sanction is Fatal
Before the Supreme Court, Gandhi's counsel argued that the entire prosecution was
because the
had not granted the sanction mandated by Section 196 CrPC. That provision requires prior sanction of the central or state government for prosecution of offences against the state or public tranquillity, including those under Sections 153A and 505 IPC. The State government, in its affidavit, did not claim that any such sanction had been issued. The bench accepted this submission, stating:
"We have heard learned counsel for parties. In affidavit filed by respondent State of UP, there is no disclosure of sanction having been granted. In such view of matter, orders passed by Magistrate shall be quashed."
The Court did not delve into the merits of whether Gandhi's remarks constituted . Instead, it rested its decision entirely on the - the absence of a valid sanction. This approach reflects the established principle that a criminal trial without the required precedent sanction is a from the start.
Legal Implications: A Procedural Shield for Political Speech
The judgment reinforces the importance of the sanction requirement as a safeguard against frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. Section 196 CrPC was designed to ensure that prosecutions for speech-related offences that touch on public order are not launched lightly, but only after the government, as the custodian of public peace, has vetted the allegations. By the proceedings on this ground, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that lower courts must verify the existence of sanction before taking of such complaints.
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder to always check for statutory preconditions when defending clients in cases. It also highlights the risk that state governments may face if they fail to comply with procedural requirements - even a high-profile prosecution can collapse.
Impact on Future Cases
While this ruling is specific to the facts and the State's silence, it could embolden other defendants facing similar charges to raise the sanction issue. Conversely, it may prompt state governments to be more diligent in grating sanctions for cases they wish to pursue. The decision doesnot, however, lay down any new law on the substantive meaning of "" or the boundaries of political commentary about historical figures.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's of the proceedings against Rahul Gandhi brings an end to a long-running criminal case that had become a flashpoint in political discourse. The outcome underscores the critical role of procedural safeguards in protecting free speech and highlights the consequences when state machinery fails to follow the law. For now, the legal chapter on the Savarkar collaborator remark is closed.
