Court dismisses complaint against Rahul Gandhi over ‘Indian State’ remark

A special court in Uttar Pradesh on Friday dismissed a complaint against Congress MP and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over his remark that “our fight is not with the BJP or the RSS, but with the Indian State”, made during a party event in January this year, Hindi daily Dainik Bhaskar has reported.

Delivering the verdict at around 6.00 pm, Judge Aarti Fauzdar of the MP–MLA Court (additional district judge) in Sambhal rejected the petition filed by Simran Gupta, national president of the Hindu Raksha Dal, who had accused Gandhi of “insulting democratic institutions” and “hurting public sentiment” through his statement.

The case, which had been pending for 10 months, was heard under provisions relating to offences by public representatives. Both sides concluded arguments on 28 October, and the court reserved its order before pronouncing it on Friday.

The complaint originated from Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on 15 January, made during the inauguration of the new Congress headquarters in New Delhi. Speaking from the dais, Gandhi said: “Our fight is not with the BJP or the RSS, but with the Indian State.”

The comment triggered a fierce political backlash, with BJP leaders accusing the Congress MP of undermining national institutions. Then BJP president J.P. Nadda called Gandhi’s words “an attack on India itself”, alleging that “the Congress wants to weaken the country”.

Simran Gupta filed his original petition against Gandhi in January itself, claiming that the remarks “questioned the legitimacy of the Indian State and its constitutional institutions”. Though the MP–MLA court initially dismissed the plea, Gupta later filed a revision petition, prompting a fresh round of hearings.

Representing Gandhi, advocate Mohammad Sagheer Saifi argued that the case was not legally maintainable, describing Gandhi’s remarks as part of “political discourse” rather than a targeted attack on any community or institution.

“This was a political statement made in the context of ideological opposition, not an act intended to incite hatred or disrespect toward the State,” Saifi told the court.

Gupta’s counsel, advocate Sachin Goyal, countered that the statement amounted to a direct assault on national institutions and could “spread dissatisfaction among the public”. Goyal argued that Gandhi’s comments “cast doubt on the country’s democratic framework and the integrity of its institutions”, and therefore warranted legal scrutiny.

After seven hearings and nearly ten months of deliberation, Judge Fauzdar dismissed the petition, effectively clearing Gandhi of any wrongdoing in the matter.

Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Gandhi’s counsel said, “This is a matter of political expression, not criminal intent. We will study the order and decide our next steps if needed.”

Gupta, however, said he was “disappointed but not discouraged”, insisting that Gandhi’s comments “hurt the sentiments of ordinary citizens”.

At the January event, Gandhi had argued that the Congress’s struggle went beyond partisan politics: “Don’t think we’re fighting the BJP or RSS as political organisations. We are fighting two ideas — one that stands for the Constitution, and another that stands against it.”

In the same speech, he also criticised RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, who had earlier claimed that India did not achieve “true independence” in 1947. Gandhi called Bhagwat’s comment “an insult to every freedom fighter” and “an attack on the Constitution,” going so far as to label it “treasonous”.

He further accused the Election Commission and Central agencies of bias, saying, “Today all investigative agencies have only one job — to target opposition leaders and put them in jail. Even the Election Commission must prove its transparency.”

Gandhi’s comments have since been used by BJP leaders to portray him as “anti-establishment”. For Gandhi, however, the ruling marks a reprieve in what has been a long season of litigation. Courts in multiple states have taken up defamation and public-order cases arising from his statements — but most, like this one, have found little legal substance.