The legal saga began when Nageshwar Mishra filed an application at the Varanasi Sarnath police station, accusing Gandhi of hateful comments—specifically, expressing that the environment in India is “not good for Sikhs.” That application was dismissed on 28 November 2024 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which ruled the court lacked jurisdiction as the remarks were made in the United States.
Mishra then challenged this dismissal. On 21 July 2025, the Sessions Court acting as the Special Judge set aside the earlier order and directed the magistrate to rehear the plea afresh. Gandhi’s appeal now contends that the Sessions Court exceeded its authority.
Legal experts observe that the Sessions Court’s judgment invoked Supreme Court precedents affirming that prior central government sanction is not required for the initial inquiry stage of offences allegedly committed abroad. Only once charges are formally framed does that requirement come into play. The court held that failing to distinguish between inquiry and trial was a misinterpretation of law.
Gandhi’s counsel argues that the proceedings should not proceed without explicit recognition of jurisdictional limits, and that the Sessions Court’s directive undermines legal safeguards. Gandhi seeks both revocation of the re-hearing order and clarity on whether Indian courts should adjudicate alleged offences arising entirely outside national territory.
This development comes amid heightened scrutiny over statements made by public figures abroad. Gandhi’s remarks were widely criticised at the time as “provocative and divisive,” with local protests erupting in response.
Court filings reflect serious questions about legal boundaries: how far Indian jurisdiction extends and whether domestic courts may, or should, open inquiries into speeches made overseas. The Allahabad High Court will now weigh these constitutional and procedural issues when it hears the revision petition.
The litigation also highlights procedural dynamics: courts must carefully balance fundamental rights—including freedom of speech—against the need to maintain communal harmony, while ensuring that judicial authority is not overextended by extraterritorial claims. As arguments proceed, the threshold for offering a fresh hearing and the proper scope of judicial review remain central to the court’s deliberation.