Observing that criticism of government action or policies is essential, the Allahabad High Court Friday dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against Rahul Gandhi, Congress MP and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, for his purported statement last January that his ‘fight was with a political party as well as the Indian State’.
A single bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan observed, “In parliamentary democracy, criticism of government action or policies is not only permitted but is essential. Therefore, criticism or ideological difference may not by itself be an offence.”
The bench added, “It is an admitted case that opposite party no 2 (Rahul Gandhi) is an elected representative and Member of Parliament. In a democracy, elected representatives serve as the bridge between citizens and government. The principle is rooted in the concept of representative democracy, where citizens delegate their voice to elected representatives. In this respect, elected representatives may voice their concerns through various mediums. Even otherwise, such elected representatives also have the individual right of freedom of speech and expression.”
In her affidavit in the HC, petitioner Simran Gupta said Gandhi’s statement was telecast on TV last year and she had seen it at her home in Sambhal.
She moved the HC challenging orders of a Special Judge, MP/MLA Court, Sambhal, Chandausi, dated February 10, 2025, and that of an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal, Chandausi, on November 7. Both courts had dismissed her plea.
Appearing on behalf of the “State”, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the “trial court as well as the revisional court did not appreciate the law in a proper perspective”. The petitioner’s counsel also argued that Gandhi’s statement “disclosed an offence and, as such, both courts erred in law in passing the orders”.
After hearing the submissions, the HC stated that the objection of the applicant is to the words “fight with Indian State”. The expression is preceded by two words, which indicate an independent organisation and one political party, it noted.
Story continues below this ad
The HC quoted a Supreme Court judgment, saying, “… Courts, particularly the Constitutional Courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Endeavour of the courts should always be to protect and promote fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, which is one of the most cherished rights a citizen can have in a liberal constitutional democracy. The Courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle freedom of speech and expression. As a matter of fact, the Courts must remain ever vigilant to thwart any attempt to undermine the Constitution and constitutional values, including freedom of speech and expression.”
The bench observed, “In the context of elected representatives, in the natural course of events and conduct, the word ‘fight’ may signify intense advocacy, persistence or opposition (rather than physical combat), against policy, thought or ideology of opponent or particular person. There may be distinction between an elected representative declaring commitment to fight against particular policy, ideology and a person inciting rebellion. It is an admitted fact that the speech of the opposite party no. 2 (Rahul Gandhi) was made in an interview and, therefore, in the normal course of events would come within discussion unless shown otherwise, the court added.”
The court further said as per the applicant, the ‘offending’ speech was broadcast on national television. “The complete extracts of alleged speech made by Rahul Gandhi has not been brought before this Court nor… before court of first instance or revisional court. A particular line of speech has been quoted in application preferred by applicant-petitioner before court of first instance, which forms basis for prayer made for lodging of First Information Report against Gandhi,” it added.
“No circumstances and material particulars have been shown before this Court to indicate that aforesaid speech has resulted in exciting, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. The offending speech is alleged to have been made in January 2025 and even after one year, it has not been shown before this Court that the aforesaid speech has resulted in any of the mischief covered by BNS section 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity),” the order read.
Story continues below this ad
The alleged speech “does not explicitly call for any of the mischief provided under BNS section 152”.
Stating that the petition lacks merit and is dismissed, it said: “This Court,in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, will not convert itself into a court of appeal. It has not been shown before this Court that the jurisdiction exercised by a court of first instance or revisional court is in grave dereliction of duty and gross abuse of power by the court concerned. The courts concerned have exercised their jurisdiction in accordance with law.”
Why petition was rejected earlier
The petitioner, in her January 23, 2025, application before the Special Judge MP/MLA Court alleged that Gandhi made a statement that ‘our fight is with an organisation, political party as well as Indian State’ on January 15.
Story continues below this ad
The applicant alleged that the statement threatens the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the Indian State, would create instability and a sense of rebellion in society, and spread public discontent.
It was alleged that Gandhi holds a constitutional position and the statement is against the basic spirit of the Constitution and is a cognizable offence. The petitioner also alleged the statement was anti-national and sought an FIR.
The courts in Sambhal had rejected the application and the revision appeal of the applicant. The MP/MLA Court, in its finding, stated that the petitioner has not shown how Gandhi’s statement is a threat to sovereignty, integrity and unity of Indian State. It had also recorded that the allegation of the petitioner, that the statement would create instability and a sense of rebellion, is only her suspicion/imagination and no material in this respect has been produced.
The Additional District and Sessions Judge court also dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, finding no error in the MP/MLA court order.
