SC quashes hate-speech complaint against Rahul Gandhi over Savarkar remarks

The Supreme Court on Friday, 14 August 2026 quashed a criminal complaint and the summons issued against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi over his remarks describing Hindutva ideologue V. D. Savarkar as a "collaborator" with the British who received a British pension.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu allowed Gandhi's plea after noting that the criminal proceedings lacked the sanction required under the law to prosecute him for the alleged offences.

"We have heard learned counsel for parties. In affidavit filed by respondent State of UP, there is no disclosure of sanction having been granted. In such view of matter, orders passed by Magistrate shall be quashed."

The complaint, filed before a magistrate in Uttar Pradesh by advocate Nripendra Pandey, invoked Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Why sanction matters

Under the IPC's sanction regime, certain prosecutions against public functionaries or for speech-related offences cannot be taken to court unless the appropriate authority has first granted prior sanction — usually the central or state government, depending on the officer concerned. Proceeding without it is a jurisdictional bar the court can enforce at any stage.

Here, the UP government's affidavit did not disclose that any sanction had been granted, so the proceedings themselves were void from the start — the reason the complaint and summons were quashed rather than simply the charges dropped.

Key takeaway

For judiciary aspirants this is a clean, exam-friendly point: sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognisance in the offences covered by the IPC's sanction provisions. Its absence is fatal to the proceedings and can be raised even at the quashing stage.