LawFinder.news
LawFinder.news

Allahabad HC junks plea seeking FIR against Rahul, says criticism of govt action must in parliamentary democracy

LAW FINDER NEWS NETWORK | May 1, 2026 at 9:55 PM
Allahabad HC junks plea seeking FIR against Rahul, says criticism of govt action must in parliamentary democracy

Prayagraj (UP), May 1 The Allahabad High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for an alleged controversial remark in 2025, saying criticism of government action or policies is essential in parliamentary democracy.


Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed the order after hearing the petition filed by Simran Gupta, who had challenged a Sambhal court's rejection of her plea seeking directions to lodge an FIR against Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.


Dismissing the petition, 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 high court further observed, "The Sambhal court of first instance has recorded a specific finding that there are no material particulars and circumstances provided by applicant-petitioner which would indicate that offence under section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out."


The section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) addresses acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.


The court of first instance further held that "petitioner has not shown how the alleged speech is a threat to sovereignty, integrity and unity of country. the claim of petitioner that offending speech would incite instability and rebellion is based on petitioner suspicion and imagination and no material has been shown in support thereof".


The petitioner had alleged that Gandhi, during the inauguration of the All India Congress Committee office in 2025, stated that "we are now fighting the BJP, the RSS, and the Indian State itself".


The petitioner said the remark hurt public sentiments and amounted to a seditious and anti-national statement allegedly intended to destabilise the country.

Share this article: