ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DISMISSED RAHUL GANDHI’S REVIEW PETITION

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DISMISSED RAHUL GANDHI’S REVIEW PETITION

27-SEP-ENG 1

RAJIV NAYAJN AGRAWAL

DELHI--------------------------The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the criminal review petition challenging the order of the Special Court (MP/MLA) in Varanasi regarding Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's statement on Sikhs. This clears the way for the trial of the case against Rahul Gandhi in the special court. Justice Sameer Jain issued the order. The court had previously reserved its decision after hearing arguments from both sides.

According to the facts of the case, in September 2024, during an event in the United States, Rahul Gandhi stated that the environment in India is not conducive for Sikhs. Can Sikhs wear turbans, wear kada, and visit gurdwaras? Calling this statement inflammatory and divisive, Nageshwar Mishra filed a complaint at the Sarnath police station demanding the registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi. When the FIR was not registered, he filed an application in the judicial magistrate's court. The Judicial Magistrate II, Varanasi, dismissed the petition, stating that the petition filed without the permission of the Central Government was not maintainable. A review petition was filed against this in the Special Court. The Special Court partially accepted the petition, set aside the Magistrate's order, and returned the case for a fresh review.

Rahul Gandhi challenged this order through a review petition. Senior advocate Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, representing Rahul Gandhi, argued that the allegations were baseless. The date of the incident was not even mentioned. The petition was filed based on news reports. No criminal case was made out against the petitioner. The Special Court should have considered the veracity, legality, regularity, and propriety of the Magistrate's order and passed an order in accordance with the law. The order was passed without considering the legal process and Supreme Court decisions. The allegations made do not constitute a criminal case, and therefore, the Special Court's order should be set aside.

On behalf of the state government, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and the plaintiff's lawyers, Satyendra Kumar Tripathi and Aman Singh Bisen, argued that the special court had returned the petition to the magistrate for disposal on its merits. Whether a crime is made out or not will be clear from the investigation. No FIR has been filed yet, so the petition has been filed prematurely. The special court has the right to summon the file and consider the validity of the order. The magistrate court will examine whether the allegations in the petition constitute a crime and may order an investigation. The investigation will involve gathering facts and evidence.

They described the arguments and decisions presented by the petitioner as separate from this case. They stated that they do not apply to this case. There is no FIR yet. The revision court cannot exercise the magistrate's powers, so the magistrate court will decide on the petition using its discretion. The case has been sent back for this purpose. There is no illegality in this. The petitioner should argue whether a crime is made out or not. If a crime is made out, investigation is necessary. The revision court's powers are somewhat limited. It cannot exercise the powers of a magistrate court. The complainant's lawyer, Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, stated that the petition is not maintainable. It is an interim order.

The court requested the date of the statement, but it could not be clarified. It stated that the application was filed regarding the statement published on TV and in newspapers. The statement is provocative to the community and should be investigated. Additional Advocate General Goyal stated that the statement was made outside the country, but the truth of the statement has not yet been denied. The investigation will determine whether Rahul Gandhi spoke sarcastically or in protest. The investigation will reveal the full truth, therefore, the special court's order is legally valid.