A special MP/MLA court in Varanasi on 10 June 2025 allowed a fresh complaint seeking criminal proceedings against Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, over his alleged remarks describing Lord Ram as a 'fictional' character during an interaction in the United States. The court's order revives a case that had been dismissed at the threshold by a lower court just two weeks earlier.

What the Court Ordered

Additional District and Sessions Judge (MP/MLA) Yajuvendra Vikram Singh allowed a criminal revision petition filed by advocate Harishankar Pandey and set aside an earlier order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), which had rejected the complaint as not maintainable. The revisional court held that the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint prematurely, without granting the complainant an opportunity of hearing, and directed that the matter be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.

Crucially, the Special Judge recorded that Gandhi's alleged statement was made at Brown University in the US — and not during parliamentary proceedings — and held that the matter required proper judicial consideration by the Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Core Legal Dispute

The central question before the revisional court was whether prior sanction from Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was necessary before proceeding against a sitting Member of Parliament. The ACJM had, on 27 May 2025, rejected the complaint on precisely this ground, ruling it not maintainable without such sanction.

Pandey challenged that finding, arguing that since the alleged remarks were made outside Parliament — specifically during an interaction at Brown University in Boston on 21 April 2025 — the Speaker's sanction requirement did not apply. The Special Judge agreed that the question warranted fuller judicial examination and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate.

Allegations in the Complaint

In his complaint, Pandey alleged that 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 among communities. The original complaint also named 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.

Gandhi represents the Raebareli constituency in the Lok Sabha and serves as the Leader of Opposition — a constitutionally significant position that has added political weight to the case.

Background and Context

This is not the first time Gandhi has faced legal complaints over remarks made during overseas interactions. The 21 April 2025 Brown University event, where he allegedly referred to Lord Ram as a 'mythological and fictional character', triggered multiple complaints across different states. The Varanasi case is among the most legally advanced, having now cleared the threshold challenge at the revisional stage.

Notably, the case turns on a procedural question with broader implications: whether statements made by elected representatives outside Parliament attract the same immunity protections as those made inside the House. The Special Judge's order suggests that question is far from settled.

What Happens Next

The matter now returns to the ACJM for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Magistrate will be required to hear the complainant before passing any order on maintainability. Whether the court ultimately takes cognisance of the complaint — and whether the sanction question resurfaces — will determine the trajectory of the case in the weeks ahead.