DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇳 India /Crime & Justice

Allahabad High Court dismisses plea seeking FIR against spiritual leader Rambhadracharya

From Hindustan Times · () English

Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

Newswire From a news agency Outcome reported
  • The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against spiritual leader Rambhadracharya over alleged remarks about the Upadhyay community and the Shankaracharyas.
  • The court said a person challenging the non-registration of an FIR should first approach a magistrate under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
  • The petitioner, Ramesh Upadhyay, may pursue another legal remedy after the court rejected his writ petition.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against spiritual leader Rambhadracharya over alleged objectionable remarks about the Upadhyay community and revered religious figures, including the four Shankaracharyas.

A bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena said a person who believes police have failed to register an FIR must ordinarily use the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court rejected the writ petition filed by Ramesh Upadhyay of Varanasi in an order dated September 1, while allowing him to pursue an appropriate remedy under the law. Upadhyay said statements by Rambhadracharya, the founder and head of Tulsi Peeth in Chitrakoot, had caused “grave mental agony, humiliation and insult” to him and other members of the Upadhyay community.

grave mental agony, humiliation and insult

· Ramesh UpadhyayThe petitioner described the alleged impact of Rambhadracharya's statements on him and other members of the Upadhyay community.

He also alleged that remarks about the four Shankaracharyas had hurt the religious sentiments of their followers. Videos of the statements were circulated on social media, including YouTube, he told the court. Upadhyay said he complained to the Varanasi commissioner of police on October 8, 2025, but no FIR had been registered.

The state opposed the petition, arguing that Upadhyay had not first approached the police station or a magistrate under Section 175 of the BNSS. The court agreed, stating that the proper route was to approach the concerned magistrate if police had not registered an FIR or had failed to conduct a proper investigation.

This Court is of the considered view that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or that having been registered, a proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 175 BNSS

· Allahabad High CourtThe court explained why it dismissed the petition.
About this summary

Originally published by Hindustan Times in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog