The Allahabad High Court concluded a hearing regarding a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi, the Congress MP and Leader of the Opposition, and has reserved its judgment. The petition is a challenge to a ruling made by the Special Judge of the MP-MLA Court in Varanasi.
Following the hearing of the revision petition by Rahul Gandhi, Justice Samir Jain reserved the verdict, with the order of the Special Judge (MP-MLA Court) to be stayed pending the court’s final decision.
Gandhi’s plea to the High Court was a response to the MP-MLA court’s decision. The Special Judge had directed a petition, which sought the filing of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi, to the ACJM Court for a fresh hearing. This prompted Gandhi’s appeal to the Allahabad High Court. The core of the matter is related to statements Gandhi made about Sikhs during a 2024 event in the United States.
Nageshwar Mishra from Varanasi had filed an application with the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MP-MLA) in Varanasi. This application requested an FIR against Rahul Gandhi. The court dismissed the application on November 28, citing lack of jurisdiction since the speech was given in the US.
Mishra challenged the dismissal in a revision court, which accepted his petition and instructed the ACJM Court to rehear the case.
The underlying issue dates back to September of the previous year. During a U.S. event, Rahul Gandhi allegedly stated that the situation for Sikhs in India was unfavorable. His remarks sparked widespread criticism, described as inflammatory and divisive.
Mishra attempted to file an FIR at a Varanasi police station but was unsuccessful. He subsequently filed a court application to compel the filing of an FIR against Gandhi. The judicial magistrate rejected this, citing jurisdictional limits due to the speech’s location.
Following the rejection, Mishra filed a revision petition in the Sessions Court, which was accepted on July 21 of the current year. Rahul Gandhi then filed a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court, contending that the Varanasi court’s order was incorrect, unlawful, and beyond its jurisdiction.
