Allahabad High Court Refuses FIR Against Rahul Gandhi Over “Fight With Indian State” Remark, Finds No Offence Under BNS Section 152

The Allahabad High Court has refused to order registration of an FIR against Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition of Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over a televised remark referring to a “fight with the Indian State,” holding that the statement, in the absence of context and supporting material, did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Dismissing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan upheld concurrent findings of the trial court and revisional court, which had earlier rejected applicant Simran Gupta’s plea seeking criminal proceedings against Gandhi.

Gupta filed an application on January 23, 2025, before the MP/MLA court in Sambhal, where he alleged that Gandhi’s statement, which was made during a televised interaction on January 15, 2025, posed a threat to the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

As per the application, Gandhi had said that his and his Party's fight is with an organization, a political party, as well as the Indian State.

Gupta claimed that the remark could incite rebellion, create instability and spread public discontent, and sought registration of an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The trial court, however, rejected the application, noting that no material had been placed on record to show how the statement satisfied the ingredients of the alleged offence. It held that the apprehensions expressed were based on “suspicion and imagination.” The revisional court later affirmed this view and declined to interfere.

Before the high court, counsel for Gupta, Advocates Dinesh Singh Yadav and Rohit Nandan Pandey, argued that Gandhi’s statement amounted to an offence under Section 152 BNS, which penalises acts, including speech, that incite secession, armed rebellion or threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Court, however, examined the issue through the lens of constitutional protections for free speech. It emphasised that Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and that restrictions under Article 19(2) apply only when speech crosses into incitement or poses a tangible threat to public order or national integrity.

Citing Supreme Court judgments including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026), the high court reiterated the distinction between “discussion, advocacy and incitement,” observing that even unpopular or critical views fall within the ambit of protected speech unless they amount to incitement.

Court also noted that when criminal action is sought against speech, the burden lies on the complainant to demonstrate that the expression falls within the scope of penal provisions and is not protected by constitutional guarantees. In the present case, it found that neither the complete statement nor its context had been placed before the courts.

Significantly, court observed that elected representatives, in a democratic setup, are entitled to express dissent and critique policies or institutions. The use of the word “fight,” it said, could not be read in isolation and, in political discourse, may denote ideological opposition rather than a call to rebellion.

Court further recorded that even after a year of the alleged statement, no material had been produced to show that it had led to any incitement, secessionist activity or threat to national integrity as contemplated under Section 152 BNS.

Emphasising that registration of an FIR is a serious step that can curtail personal liberty, court said judicial authorities must exercise caution, particularly in cases involving speech protected by the Constitution.

Holding that the petitioner had failed to place material particulars or establish a prima facie offence, court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Simran Gupta vs. State of U.P. and another

Order Date: May 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan