Allahabad High Court Upholds Remand for Fresh Decision on FIR Against Rahul Gandhi

Revisional Court Decision Reaffirmed; Magistrate to Determine Cognizability of Alleged Offences Under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

In a significant ruling on 26th September 2025, the Allahabad High Court, under Justice Sameer Jain, dismissed a revision petition filed by opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, challenging the remand order passed by the lower revisional court. The court upheld the decision to remit the matter back to the magistrate for a fresh decision concerning the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Gandhi, based on statements he made in the USA and during the Delhi agitation against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The controversy stems from an application filed by an individual, identified as opposite party no. 2, who argued that Gandhi's statements incited animosity and endangered the sovereignty of India. The application requested the registration of an FIR under sections 147, 148, and 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Initially, the magistrate dismissed the application, citing the necessity of sanction under Section 208 BNSS for registration due to the statements being made outside India. However, the sessions court overturned this decision, clarifying that sanction is required only for inquiry and trial, not for investigation or FIR registration.

Gandhi's counsel contended that neither the magistrate nor the lower revisional court assessed whether the statements constituted cognizable offences. They argued that the revisional court should have made this determination instead of remanding the matter. Nevertheless, the High Court confirmed that the revisional court's jurisdiction, as defined under Section 438 BNSS, is limited to reviewing the correctness and legality of lower court findings, not recording new findings on the case facts.

The judgment emphasizes the role of the magistrate in determining the presence of cognizable offences before directing FIR registration and investigation. This process ensures that allegations are substantiated by legal standards before further judicial proceedings.

The case has drawn attention due to its implications on the intersection of political speech, legal accountability, and procedural justice within the framework of BNSS, 2023. The magistrate is now tasked with reassessing the application to conclude whether the alleged offences warrant FIR registration under the outlined statutory provisions.

Bottom Line:

Remand order passed by revisional court under Section 438 BNSS is not an interlocutory order; revisional court's duty is limited to checking correctness, legality, or propriety of findings recorded by the inferior court. 

Statutory provision(s): Sections 173(4), 208, 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Rahul Gandhi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2784622