In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court on Friday, September 26, 2025, rejected a petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi’s plea challenged a previous order from the Varanasi MP/MLA Sessions Court concerning his remarks about the Sikh community made during a visit to the United States.
Rahul Gandhi had sought to have the original application for a First Information Report (FIR) against him — pertaining to his alleged statements in the US — sent back to the magisterial court for a fresh decision. Justice Sameer Jain presided over the hearing of this particular plea.
The legal proceedings began when Nageshwar Mishra, a Varanasi resident, filed an application before the local magisterial court, which handles cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly.
Initially, on November 28, 2024, the magisterial court had rejected Mishra’s application for an FIR against Gandhi. The court cited a lack of jurisdiction, stating that the alleged speech was delivered in the United States.
However, Mishra challenged this decision before the special MP/MLA sessions court. This higher court subsequently allowed the revision, overturning the magistrate’s decision, and sent the case back to the magisterial court with instructions to hear the matter afresh.
According to the complainant, Nageshwar Mishra, Rahul Gandhi stated in September 2024, during an event in the U.S., that the environment in India was not favorable for Sikhs. Mishra contended that these remarks were provocative and divisive, leading to widespread protests within society.
Having failed to get an FIR registered directly with the Sarnath police station in Varanasi, Mishra then approached the magisterial court.
Representing Rahul Gandhi, Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi argued that Mishra’s application lacked a crucial detail: the specific date of the alleged controversial statement.
Conversely, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel maintained that the High Court should assess whether there was a prima facie case for the magistrate to decide. Goel emphasized that if a leader of the opposition makes statements against India on foreign soil, especially when there’s an admission of such utterances, it warrants a thorough investigation.