A Varanasi court has revived a complaint against Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks describing Lord Ram as a “mythological figure” during an event at Brown University in the United States. The Rahul Gandhi Lord Ram remark case concerns the court’s decision that a complaint cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage merely because prior sanction was not obtained. The court ordered a fresh hearing in the matter.
Background of the Dispute
Advocate Harishankar Pandey filed the complaint alleging that Rahul Gandhi made the remarks while addressing an event at Brown University during his visit to the United States.
The complainant argued that the statement hurt the religious sentiments of followers of Sanatan Dharma and attracted provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The matter was registered as Complaint Case No. 28227 of 2025, titled Harishankar Pandey v. Rahul Gandhi & Others, before the MP/MLA Court in Varanasi.
Magistrate Had Dismissed Complaint
On May 27, 2025, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint at the initial stage. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Sections 208 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was necessary before the case could proceed.
The Magistrate reasoned that the alleged statement was made outside India. Therefore, he held that Section 208 BNSS required Central Government sanction. The court also observed that the complainant had not obtained approval from the competent authority under Section 217 BNSS.
The complainant challenged the dismissal by filing Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2025 before the Sessions Court.
Arguments Before Revisional Court
The revisionist argued that the Magistrate misunderstood the scope of Sections 208 and 217 BNSS. He submitted that the court dismissed the complaint without correctly examining the legal position on sanction and cognizance.
The revisionist further argued that courts do not require sanction at the stage of filing or registering a complaint. He also contended that Rahul Gandhi, as an elected representative, does not fall within the category of public servants covered under Section 217 BNSS.
The State opposed the revision and supported the Magistrate’s order.
Court’s Analysis
The revisional court examined Sections 208, 217, and 223 of the BNSS. It also referred to decisions in Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Narela Chiranjivi Arun Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The court held that Section 208 BNSS becomes relevant at the stage of taking cognizance and further proceedings. It does not apply when a complainant merely presents a complaint before the court.
The court also clarified that registering or presenting a complaint under Section 223 BNSS does not amount to taking cognizance. A court takes cognizance only after applying its judicial mind and following the prescribed procedure.
Therefore, the court held that the Magistrate wrongly dismissed the complaint only because prior sanction was unavailable.
The Rahul Gandhi Lord Ram remark case highlights the distinction between filing a complaint and taking cognizance under criminal procedure.
Order of the Court
Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (MP/MLA) Yajuvendra Vikram Singh, Court No. 5, Varanasi, allowed the revision petition.
The court set aside the Magistrate’s order dated May 27, 2025. It directed the Magistrate to hear the matter again and pass a fresh order according to law. The Magistrate must also consider the legal principles laid down by higher courts regarding sanction and cognizance.
