Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Against Rahul Gandhi Over ‘Fighting Indian State’ Remark, Upholds Right to Criticise Government
By Rajesh Pandey
In a ruling that reaffirms the importance of free political expression in a democracy, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
Rahul Gandhi, over his controversial “fighting the Indian state” remark made in 2025.
The petition, filed by Sambhal resident Simran Gupta, had challenged an earlier order of a local court which refused to direct police to lodge an FIR against Gandhi.
The remark in question was allegedly made during the inauguration of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) office in Sambhal, where Gandhi is said to have stated that his party was “fighting the BJP, the RSS, and the Indian state itself.”
Hearing the matter, Justice Vikram D Chauhan made it clear that in a parliamentary democracy, dissent and criticism of the government are not just permissible—they are essential.
The court observed that merely expressing ideological disagreement or criticising government policies cannot automatically be treated as a criminal offence.
The judge pointed out that this principle is also reflected in Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with acts that may threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
Importantly, the provision does not criminalise criticism unless it is backed by intent and material evidence showing a real threat to the nation.
The court noted that the lower court in Sambhal had already examined the matter in detail and found no substantive material to support the allegations.
It had concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how Gandhi’s alleged statement posed any genuine threat to the country’s sovereignty or unity.
Further, the High Court highlighted that the claims made by the petitioner—that the remark could incite instability or rebellion—were based largely on personal assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
There was nothing on record to suggest that the speech had led to or was likely to lead to public disorder or anti-national activity.
Justice Chauhan, who had reserved the verdict on April 8 after hearing arguments from both sides, ultimately upheld the findings of the lower court.
The High Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be invoked based on conjecture or perceived hurt sentiments without a clear and demonstrable offence.
By dismissing the petition, the court has sent a strong message about the boundaries of free speech in India’s democratic framework—underscoring that political rhetoric, even if sharp or controversial, does not amount to sedition or a threat to national integrity unless it crosses a clear legal threshold backed by evidence.
