The Times of India
The Times of India
The legal friction stems from an initial application by Nageshwar Mishra of Varanasi, who attempted to lodge a complaint at the Sarnath police station, alleging Gandhi questioned whether Sikhs could safely practise their faith in India. When the police declined to register an FIR, Mishra approached the ACJM court, which dismissed the case on 28 November 2024, concluding the speech was made in the United States and fell outside its jurisdiction. Undeterred, Mishra moved the Varanasi MP-MLA court, which on 21 July 2025 overturned the earlier dismissal and ordered the ACJM to reconsider the plea. This order set the stage for Gandhi’s appeal to the High Court, which he contends was issued illegally and exceeds the lower court’s jurisdiction.
During the High Court hearing, Gandhi's counsel argued that the impugned remarks were taken out of context. It was asserted that “one cannot pick a single sentence from an entire speech to draw such a conclusion,” pointing to Supreme Court precedents that counsel must properly understand intent before attributing mens rea. The Uttar Pradesh government’s legal team countered that Gandhi, as the Leader of the Opposition, carries significant weight and his words resonate as the voice of the opposition across borders. They maintained that the magistrate should have the opportunity to assess whether a cognisable offence is prima facie made out.
This case highlights a broader judicial conundrum: whether Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction over statements made abroad and whether procedural safeguards, such as central government sanction, are required. Experts suggest the outcome may influence future thresholds for jurisdiction when political figures express opinions on foreign soil. Persons familiar with legal norms caution that a ruling favouring the ACJM court may constrain lower courts’ latitude in addressing defamation or inflammatory speech rooted abroad.
Meanwhile, the legal ramifications extend beyond jurisdictional questions. The case has ignited debate over political accountability, the responsibilities of high-profile leaders, and the boundaries of judicial intervention in speech-related matters. Gandhi’s legal team emphasises the necessity of protecting intent-based interpretation and resisting reductionist readings. Meanwhile, critics assert that statements with potential to stir communal unrest must be scrutinised regardless of venue.