Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea For FIR Against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi Over ‘Indian State’ Remark, Upholds Lower Court Order
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his remarks on the “Indian state”. The court upheld a Sambhal trial court’s earlier order rejecting the complaint as weak. The plea was filed challenging the lower court’s decision, which has now been reaffirmed. Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea For FIR Against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi Over ‘Indian State’ Remark | File Photo Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has granted major relief to Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi by dismissing a petition seeking registration of an FIR against him. Petitioner and Challenge The petition was filed by Simran Gupta, who had challenged a Sambhal trial court order that rejected her plea for criminal proceedings against Gandhi. She had sought directions for lodging an FIR based on Gandhi’s remarks concerning the Indian state. The High Court dismissed the plea and upheld the lower court’s decision, bringing the matter to a close at this stage. Origin of Complaint The case stems from a complaint filed in a Chandausi court in Sambhal, where the petitioner alleged that Gandhi’s statement made on January 15, 2025, during the inauguration of the Congress headquarters Indira Bhawan warranted legal action. In his speech, Gandhi had said that the Congress was fighting not only the BJP and RSS but also what he described as the “Indian state”. The trial court had earlier rejected the complaint, terming it weak. The petitioner then moved the High Court challenging that order, which has now been dismissed. Meanwhile, Gandhi continues to face legal scrutiny in another matter before the High Court concerning allegations linked to his alleged British citizenship. The case is being heard separately, with the next hearing scheduled later this month. The matter pertains to a plea seeking investigation into claims regarding his citizenship status. Courtesy : TFPJ Note: This news is originally published on https:/thefreepressjournal.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Dalit girl case probe: Andhra Pradesh HC raps police
Expressing serious concern, the court criticized the police for failing to support the victim and instead allegedly pressuring her family to withdraw the criminal case. VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the police for allegedly attempting to shield ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leaders accused of sexually harassing a minor Dalit girl in West Godavari district on Friday. Expressing serious concern, the court criticized the police for failing to support the victim and instead allegedly pressuring her family to withdraw the criminal case. The case pertains to a complaint filed by a 13-year-old girl on February 18 in Bhimavaram, accusing local political leader Chennu Chanti and his son of sexual harassment and caste-based abuse. Based on her complaint, a case was registered under relevant provisions, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the victim’s family later approached the High Court, alleging that police officials were threatening them to withdraw the case and were not conducting a fair investigation. During the hearing, Justice Yadawalli Lakshmana Rao strongly reprimanded the police, questioning their conduct and impartiality. The court observed that it is the duty of the police to investigate the complaint thoroughly and file a charge sheet, rather than speculate about alleged political motives behind the complaint. The judge expressed displeasure over statements made by Bhimavaram DSP Raghuveer Vishnu, who reportedly suggested political involvement in the case. “Do you have divine insight to claim political motives?” the court asked, adding that such determinations fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary, not the police. The judge further criticised the delay in arresting the accused, noting that the incident occurred in February but no significant progress had been made. The court also expressed shock after reviewing parts of the victim’s complaint, stating that the allegations reflected disturbing and shameful conduct that would make any civilised society ‘bow its head in shame.’ It accused the police of derailing the investigation and acting under external pressure. In strong remarks, the court told the officials to resign from the service if they were unable to withstand political pressure. It also questioned the alleged intimidation of the victim’s mother and emphasised that the police must act lawfully and independently. Finding the DSP’s explanation unsatisfactory, the court directed the West Godavari Superintendent of Police to appear in person with all case records. The matter has been adjourned to May 1 for further hearing. Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/thenewindianexpress.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
LUCKNOW: Perturbed with unpleasant situation caused in Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s dual citizenship case, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court on Monday recused himself from hearing of the case and requested the chief justice to constitute another bench. On Monday, Justice Vidyarthi was particularly peeved by the social media posts of petitioner S Shishir Vignesh after his previous order. Justice Vidyarthi , however, admitted that he should have issued notice to Rahul Gandhi in the case before dictating filing of an FIR on April 17, 2026 in an open court . He also chastised the lawyers of all the parties for not placing before him the correct legal position as to whether the proposed accused was required to be heard. Hearing a plea from of a Karnataka BJP worker, Justice Vidyarthi on April 17, 2026 had dictated an order in open court , directing Uttar Pradesh police to register an FIR against Rahul in case of alleged double citizenship controversy. However, when the order came to be uploaded on high court’s website on April on April 18, 2026 , it stated that before the order was typed and signed , the judge came to know that in a leading verdict of the Allahabad high court, it was mandatory to issue notice to the proposed accused , in this case Gandhi, before delivery any judgment on the issue. The judge had, thereafter, instead of signing the order, posted the matter for further hearing on April 20 on question of issuance of notice to Gandhi. In its order passed on Monday, the judge clarified that it was mandatory to issue notice to Gandhi prior to passing any order in the case. The judge was specially peeved by the social media posts made by the petitioner, S Shishir Vignesh. “The messages posted by the petitioner on social media after passing of the order on April 17 amount to casting aspersions on this court and keeping those in consideration, I find it appropriate to recuse from hearing this case”, said Justice Vidyarthi. Expressing annoyance that proper legal assistance was not given to him by informing that issuance of notice to proposed accused was necessary, Justice Vidyarthi observed, “ I am pained to note that the lawyers appearing in this case have failed to perform their duty of providing assistance to the Court in a fair manner.” Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Allahabad high court stays FIR order against Rahul Gandhi in dual citizenship case
The Allahabad high court on Saturday stayed its earlier direction ordering the registration of an FIR against Congress leader and Lok Sabha leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi in connection with an alleged dual citizenship case.The court also stated that no decision could be taken without first hearing the accused, as news agency ANI reported. A day earlier, the Lucknow bench of the high court had directed the Uttar Pradesh police to register an FIR against the Congress MP, citing allegations that he concealed British citizenship while incorporating a company in England in 2003. The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi had also allowed the state government to transfer the probe to any central agency. It noted that a prima facie reading of the allegations indicated cognizable offences, warranting a detailed investigation. The direction came after the Deputy Solicitor General submitted relevant documents as sought by the court. The plea was filed by Karnataka BJP worker Vignesh Shishir, who alleged that Rahul had declared himself a UK citizen while incorporating a company, M/S Backops Ltd, registered in August 2003. According to the petitioner, Rahul had voluntarily listed his nationality as British and provided a Director Identification ID along with addresses in London and Hampshire. While passing its earlier order, the bench had set aside a January 28, 2025 ruling by a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow, which had declined to order an FIR. The high court observed that the lower court failed to adequately examine whether the allegations disclosed prima facie cognizable offences. During the hearing, deputy solicitor general SB Pandey presented central government records related to the citizenship issue, while state government counsel VK Singh agreed that the allegations, on the face of it, warranted investigation. The bench had concluded that the material on record suggested the need for a probe into the claims of dual citizenship. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi High Court, Says Justice Asha Menon Panel Can’t Decide Transgender Job Rights Cases
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Justice Asha Menon Advisory Committee has no power to decide legal disputes on transgender recruitment. It granted relief to petitioners and said courts—not committees—must decide such rights-based issues. The Supreme Court of India has recently raised serious concerns over how the Delhi High Court handled a case related to the recruitment rights of transgender persons in public employment. While issuing notice in the matter, the apex court observed that the High Court made a prima facie mistake by disposing of the petitions and asking the petitioners to approach an advisory body instead of deciding the legal issues itself. The case revolves around the rights of transgender individuals seeking fair representation and opportunities in government jobs. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan made it clear that the Advisory Committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon does not have the power to decide legal disputes. The Court observed, “Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in disposing of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Advisory Committee as the Committee possesses no adjudicatory powers.” The Supreme Court clarified that the role of the Advisory Committee is limited. It is only meant to study issues and give policy recommendations to the government. It cannot decide individual legal cases or grant relief to petitioners. During the hearing, the Court also recalled that the petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 while the case was still pending before the High Court. Referring to that, the bench stated, “We must note at the outset that in 2023, the petitioner had also approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner prayed for reliefs pertaining to the framing of an equal opportunity policy, the implementation of various provisions of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules including various other reliefs in the specific facts of her case. While dealing with the said petition, this Court delivered the judgment titled Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, reported in 2026 (1) SCC 336, wherein several binding directions relating to the implementation of the TPPR Act and TPPR Rules, respectively were issued.” The Court further explained that the Advisory Committee is still working on several important issues related to transgender rights. These include creating an Equal Opportunity Policy, improving grievance redressal systems, ensuring inclusive healthcare, and addressing gaps in the law. Highlighting this, the Court said, “The Advisory Committee is currently in the process of working on the aspects broadly delineated in their remit including the formulation of a model equal opportunity policy in employment and education.” Importantly, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to the petitioner. It allowed the petitioner to apply for government job vacancies under the transgender category, even if the vacancy mentions a specific gender. This is in line with an earlier interim order passed in January 2023, ensuring that transgender candidates are not excluded from opportunities due to rigid gender classifications. The original petitions filed before the Delhi High Court had sought several directions to strengthen transgender rights in public employment. These included demands for separate vacancies, reservation in jobs including teaching posts in Delhi, age and qualification relaxations, and allowing changes in name and gender on official recruitment portals. While deciding the case earlier, the Delhi High Court had relied on important judgments like NALSA v. Union of India, which recognized transgender persons as the “third gender” and directed the government to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes. The High Court had also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, which highlighted gaps in implementing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its 2020 Rules. Based on this, the High Court felt that since the Supreme Court had already formed an Advisory Committee to deal with these issues, the petitioners should approach that body instead. However, the Supreme Court has now clarified that such committees cannot replace courts when it comes to deciding legal rights. The matter will now be heard further after notice has been issued. In a related development, the Advisory Committee led by Justice Asha Menon has reportedly recommended that the Union Government withdraw the proposed Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, indicating ongoing concerns about the legal framework governing transgender rights in India. This case is likely to have significant implications for how transgender rights are enforced in public employment and how courts balance policy-making bodies with judicial authority in protecting fundamental rights. By Hardik Khandelwal Courtesy : Law Chakra Note: This news is originally published on https:/lawchakra.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Delhi HC seeks Centre’s stand on petitions challenging amended transgender law
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Centre’s stand on two petitions challenging provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, for taking away one’s right to a self-perceived gender identity. A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice on petitions by Chandresh Jain and Lakshay Jain and asked the central government to file its reply within six weeks. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by Parliament on March 25 and received President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on March 30. Petitioner Chandresh Jain said the Act “removes and dilutes” self-perceived gender identity and instead introduces a regime of State-controlled verification, certification and screening of gender identity, which violates rights to dignity, privacy and decisional autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. His petition further said that the amendment Act is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate, and it infringes Article 19(1)(a) by restricting the expression of gender identity. Lakshya Jain’s petition said that the amendment altered the existing statutory framework by replacing self-perceived gender identity with a regime of medical and administrative verification, including scrutiny by a district magistrate (DM). His plea said that such a requirement was ex facie violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India, which held that gender identity is a matter of self-identification and psychological identity must take precedence over biological attributes. Chandresh Jain’s plea emphasised that the apex court has already held that gender identity is an integral part of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21, and every individual has the right to a self-identified gender. The case would be next heard on July 22. Courtesy : The Pioneer Note: This news is originally published on https:/thepioneer.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Rahul’s citizenship issue: HC sets hearing on Apr 15
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court on Monday heard at length the case related to alleged dual citizenship controversy pertaining to Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The hearing took place in the chamber of the court as it was pointed out by the Central govt that the issue was sensitive. The bench has now fixed April 15 as the next date of hearing in the matter. A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on the petition filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker of Karnataka. The petitioner has challenged the Jan 28 order of the special MP/MLA court, Lucknow whereby it had rejected his plea to order registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi. The MP/MLA court had said that it was not competent to decide the citizenship issue. The petitioner seeks registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi and detailed probe against him in the matter . He has levelled several allegations against Rahul Gandhi under BNS, Official Secrets Act, Foreigners Act and Passport Act. Hearing the matter earlier, the bench had asked the Central govt as to what action was taken by it on a complaint moved against Rahul’s British citizenship. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Nashik court disposes of defamation case against Rahul Gandhi
Nashik: The court of additional chief judicial magistrate Rupali Narwadiya has disposed of the defamation case filed against leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The case was initiated by Devendra Bhutada, president of the Nashik-based Nirbhaya Foundation, who alleged that Gandhi made defamatory remarks about Hindutva ideologue and freedom fighter VD Savarkar during ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ rallies held in Hingoli and Akole on June 15 and 16, 2022. Bhutada approached the court shortly after learning of the comments. Following the complaint, a case was registered under sections 499 (defamation) and 504 (intentional insult) of IPC, and the court issued summons to Gandhi in Sept 2024. Last July, the additional chief judicial magistrate granted Gandhi bail, allowing him to attend hearings virtually, during which he pleaded not guilty. Defence lawyer Gajendra Sanap said the court had ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, and after police submitted their investigation report, the complainant sought to withdraw the case. Mohan Pingale, representing Bhutada, said the withdrawal application was filed because Bhutada’s daughter had recently moved abroad, making it difficult for him to attend frequent hearings. He said the four-year-old case had led to summons and warrants against Gandhi, requiring him to secure bail and participate in virtual proceedings. Pingale said the Supreme Court mandated priority handling of cases involving MPs and MLAs. “In view of the circumstances, we applied to withdraw the case, and the court accepted the request, thereby disposing of the matter,” he said. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Rahul’s citizenship plea: HC seeks papers from Centre
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court Monday sought relevant records from the Union ministry of home affairs while hearing a petition alleging that Congress MP Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen. The single-judge bench of Justice Rajeev Singh scheduled the next hearing in the matter for March 19. The petition was filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker in Karnataka, who has challenged the Jan 28, 2026, order of the special MP/MLA court in Lucknow, which had rejected his plea to order registration of an FIR against Gandhi. The MP/MLA court had said it was not competent to decide the citizenship issue. Hearing the matter on Monday at length, the bench also asked the union govt counsel, Raj Kumar Singh, about the action taken by the Centre on a complaint moved against Rahul’s alleged British citizenship. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Rahul Gandhi appears before Bhiwandi court in defamation case
BHIWANDI: Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi appeared before a court here on Saturday in connection with a criminal defamation case stemming from remarks made during the 2014 Lok Sabha election campaign.Sources said Gandhi’s personal appearance was largely procedural and necessitated by the recent demise of his former surety, Shivraj Patil Chakurkar, who had stood guarantee for his bail. With the earlier surety holder passing away last month, fresh surety formalities were required to be completed before the court. The case dates back to a public rally in Sonale village in Bhiwandi taluka during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, where Gandhi allegedly stated that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Following the speech, RSS office-bearer Rajesh Kunte filed a private complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, accusing Gandhi of defaming the organisation. Advocate Narayan Iyer, representing Gandhi, said the appearance was mandated due to the submission of a new surety. “Gandhi was required to be present as a new surety has been furnished following the demise of his earlier surety. The hearing was primarily procedural,” Iyer told TOI. On Gandhi’s behalf, Maharashtra Congress president Harshwardhan Sapkal was presented as the new surety before the court.Iyer said that after Sapkal’s surety was submitted, Gandhi signed the bond. Iyer added that the matter has reached an advanced stage. “The chief examination and cross-examination of the complainant, Rajesh Kunte, have been concluded. The trial is progressing,” he said. In view of Gandhi’s visit, Thane Police had deployed additional personnel around the court premises to manage crowds and ensure law and order. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights