A petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by a court in Sambhal which refused to direct the registration of a First Information Report against Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The petitioner, Simran Gupta of the Hindu Shakti Dal, has approached the High Court contending that certain remarks allegedly made by Gandhi have hurt public sentiments and warranted the registration of a criminal case.
The controversy arises from a statement attributed to Rahul Gandhi during the inauguration of an office of the Indian National Congress, where he reportedly remarked that the political fight was not merely against the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh but also against “the Indian State.” The petitioner claims that this statement was controversial and offensive, and therefore sought to have an FIR registered against him.
Initially, the petitioner approached the Sambhal Court seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR in connection with the alleged remarks. The Sambhal Court declined to issue such a direction. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order. However, the revision petition was also dismissed, leaving the petitioner without relief at the lower court level.
Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging both the order of the Sambhal Court refusing to direct registration of the FIR and the dismissal of the revision petition. The plea asserts that the lower courts erred in refusing to take action and that their orders warrant interference by the High Court.
The matter came up for hearing before a bench presided over by Justice Samit Gopal. During the proceedings, the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the petition filed before the High Court did not clearly disclose detailed grounds challenging the impugned orders. It was pointed out that the absence of specific grounds made it difficult to examine the correctness of the lower court’s decision.
In response to this objection, counsel for the petitioner sought time from the Court to file a supplementary affidavit elaborating on the grounds of challenge to the orders passed by the Sambhal Court and in the revision proceedings. The High Court granted two weeks’ time to the petitioner for this purpose. The bench directed that once the supplementary affidavit is filed, the registry shall restore the petition and place the additional material on record for further consideration.
The case has been adjourned to a later date for further hearing after the filing of the supplementary affidavit. The High Court has not passed any order on the merits of the petitioner’s request for registration of an FIR at this stage. The proceedings presently remain at the stage of completion of pleadings, with the Court awaiting detailed grounds of challenge before deciding whether the orders of the Sambhal Court and the revisional court require interference.
The petition highlights the legal question of whether a lower court’s refusal to direct the registration of an FIR can be examined under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, particularly when the allegations involve statements made by a prominent political figure. The High Court’s interim order ensures that the petitioner is given an opportunity to place comprehensive grounds before the Court, after which the matter will be considered in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.