The order was passed by the ACJM-III / MP-MLA Special Court following a preliminary hearing on a complaint filed under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Advocate Nripendra Pandey is the complainant in the case, which is linked to Hazratganj police station in Lucknow.
According to the complaint, the remark in question was made by Rahul Gandhi on January 15, 2025, during the inauguration of the Congress party’s new headquarters, Indira Bhawan, in New Delhi. In his address, Gandhi had said, “We are now fighting the BJP, the RSS and the Indian State itself.” The complainant has alleged that the statement was deliberate and made with full awareness of its implications.
The petition claims that the use of the term “Indian State” goes beyond political criticism and amounts to an attack on the country’s constitutional framework. It argues that the Indian State comprises Parliament, the judiciary, the executive, and other constitutional institutions, and that calling for a fight against it could undermine national unity and integrity.
Besides Rahul Gandhi, the complaint names several senior Congress leaders who were present at the event, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, former party chief Sonia Gandhi, general secretary K.C. Venugopal, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, and Jairam Ramesh. The complainant has contended that none of them objected to the statement or sought to distance themselves from it, which, he claims, indicates tacit approval.
During the hearing, the court observed that the allegations required responses from all parties concerned before any further judicial determination could be made. Notices were therefore issued, and the matter has been listed for consideration after the replies are filed.
The complaint further alleges that repeated criticism of constitutional institutions by influential political figures can create confusion among citizens, particularly the youth. It claims such statements have the potential to disturb social harmony and weaken public faith in democratic institutions.
Legal experts note that issuing notice at this stage does not amount to a finding on the merits of the case but signals that the court considers the matter fit for further examination. The responses filed by the accused will be crucial in determining whether the court proceeds with additional legal steps or closes the matter.
The case adds to the ongoing legal scrutiny faced by political leaders over public remarks and highlights the fine line between political dissent and alleged challenges to constitutional authority. The court is expected to take a view on the matter after January 5, 2026, once all submissions are on record.
7.jpg)
