Rahul Gandhi Sikh Remarks: Why Allahabad HC Refused to Order FIR Under Section 152 BNS

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea seeking registration of an FIR against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his remarks on the alleged insecurity faced by Sikhs in India, holding that no cognizable offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was made out from the speech.

Court said the remarks were protected by the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution.

"It is further to be noted that raising concerns regarding security of certain segment of society by itself may not amount to an offence under Section 152 of BNS, 2023, more specifically when such concerns are raised by elected representatives," said the bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan.

Section 152 of the BNS penalizes acts that purposely or knowingly excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India through speech, writing, signs, electronic communication, or financial means.

Court pointed out that it was only the suspicion of the applicants, without there being any material foundation or circumstances, that the alleged offending speech of Gandhi came within the offence under Section 152 of BNS, 2023.

Court said, "It is settled law that suspicion cannot be the foundation for criminal prosecution. Suspicion is a belief that something may have happened. Proof is evidence showing that it must have happened. The grave suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof".

Court held that even if statements made by an elected representative are inaccurate or unsubstantiated, the appropriate response is to subject them to parliamentary debate and public discourse rather than criminal prosecution, observing that “the truth may be ascertained through the free contest of ideas or thoughts".

Regarding the allegations that Gandhi made the alleged objectionable statement during his US visit in 2024, court said, 

"Raising concerns by an elected representative on foreign soil, which may for some individuals be a question of impropriety or deviation from long-standing tradition of parliamentary democracy, however, that by itself does not make the offending speech an offence".

Court was hearing an application filed by Nageshwar Mishra and another under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenging orders passed by the Varanasi courts refusing to direct registration of an FIR against Gandhi.

Mishra challenged the orders dated July 9, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi, and October 17, 2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4 (MP/MLA), Varanasi.

Initially, Mishra preferred an application dated September 26, 2024 under Section 173(4) of BNSS before the court of Judicial Magistrate (Second), Varanasi, for lodging an FIR against Gandhi under Sections 147, 148 and 152 of the BNS. 

The application referred to Gandhi speech during his USA visit in 2024, where he said that there was an atmosphere of insecurity among Sikhs in India and whether a Sikh, would be allowed to wear a turban or not, and whether he would be able to go to Gurudwara.

Mishra said that Gandhi speech was so inflammatory that it could be gauged from the fact that terrorist Gurpatwant Singh “Pannu” endorsed the remarks as correct.

Although the magistrate initially rejected the application on the ground that prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 208 BNSS had not been obtained, the revisional court subsequently set aside that order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Allahabad High Court, in an earlier round of litigation, had also dismissed Rahul Gandhi's challenge to the remand order, observing that the magistrate was required to examine whether the alleged speech disclosed a cognizable offence.

Upon reconsideration, the agistrate rejected the applicants' plea on October 17, 2025, holding that they had failed to produce concrete material demonstrating how Gandhi's speech endangered India's sovereignty, unity and integrity. The magistrate also noted that the application did not disclose the date, time or place of the alleged speech.

The revisional court upheld this decision on July 9, 2026, prompting the applicants to approach the high court again.

Before the high court, the applicants argued that Gandhi's remarks constituted an offence under Section 152 BNS and relied on newspaper reports as well as his alleged admission, in a reply filed during the earlier proceedings, that he had made the speech.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, also pointed out that a separatist heading a banned terrorist organisation had supported Gandhi's statement and claimed that it justified the demand for a separate state.

Rejecting these submissions, Justice Chauhan examined the scope of Section 152 BNS.

Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, reiterating that mere discussion or advocacy of a cause, however unpopular, is protected under Article 19(1)(a), and it is only when such expression reaches the level of incitement that restrictions under Article 19(2) may apply.

It further observed that courts must carefully scrutinise applications seeking criminal prosecution over speech, as registration of an FIR can have serious consequences for an individual's liberty.

Court noted that the applicants had failed to establish how Gandhi's remarks had resulted in or attempted to incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or separatist activities. It also pointed out that the complete extract of the alleged speech had not been placed before it and that the applicants had not even established its date, time and place.

"If a third party misinterprets or appropriates the said speech to advance its own ends, the responsibility for any ensuing consequences lies exclusively with that party, which is amenable to the law for its own acts," court observed.

Therefore, finding no ground to interfere with the Varanasi court orders, the high court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS.

Case Title: Nageshwar Mishra and another v. State of U.P. and another

Order Date: November 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan