New Delhi: A special MP/MLA court in Varanasi Wednesday allowed a fresh complaint seeking criminal action against Congress leader and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks describing Lord Ram as a “fictional” character during an interaction in the US.
Additional District and Sessions Judge (MP/MLA) Yajuvendra Vikram Singh allowed a criminal revision petition filed by advocate Harishankar Pandey and quashed an earlier order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), which had rejected the complaint at the threshold as not maintainable.
The revisional court held that the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint prematurely without granting the complainant an opportunity of hearing and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
In the court order, the Special Judge recorded that Rahul Gandhi’s alleged statement was made at Brown University in the US and not during parliamentary proceedings, and said that the issue required proper judicial consideration by the Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Pandey had challenged the ACJM’s finding that sanction from the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was necessary before proceeding against Rahul Gandhi, who represents Raebareli in the Lok Sabha and serves as the Leader of Opposition.
In his complaint, Pandey alleged that LoP Gandhi’s remarks amounted to offences punishable under Sections 196, 351 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), contending that the statement hurt the religious sentiments of followers of Sanatan Dharma and promoted disharmony.
The complainant had claimed that Rahul Gandhi, during an interaction at Brown University in Boston April 21, 2025, referred to Lord Ram as a “mythological and fictional character”.
Allowing the revision plea, the Special Judge set aside the ACJM’s order and directed that the complaint be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.
Earlier May 27, the ACJM had rejected the complaint, saying that it was not maintainable in the absence of sanction from the Lok Sabha Speaker to proceed against a sitting Member of Parliament.
Following that order, Pandey had said he would challenge the decision and seek appropriate sanction to pursue proceedings against the Congress leader.
The original complaint also arrayed the All India Congress Committee (AICC) as a respondent, alleging that the party could not evade responsibility for the remarks attributed to its senior leader.
