Archive · 6 Sep 2026
Allahabad High Court Dismisses FIR Plea Against Rambhadracharya
A man asked the Allahabad High Court to order police to register a case against spiritual leader Rambhadracharya.
He said the leader made insulting remarks about the Upadhyay community and respected religious figures called the Shankaracharyas.
He also said videos of the remarks were shared online.
The man claimed he had complained to the Varanasi police commissioner, but no FIR was registered.
The government said he had not followed the usual legal steps first.
The court agreed that he should approach a magistrate under the BNSS.
It therefore dismissed his high court petition.
However, the court said he could still use another legal remedy.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against spiritual leader Rambhadracharya.
The petition alleged objectionable remarks about the Upadhyay community and the four Shankaracharyas.
The petitioner said videos of the remarks circulated on social media, including YouTube.
The court said complainants should normally approach a magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before invoking Article 226.
Ramesh Upadhyay was allowed to pursue an appropriate legal remedy despite dismissal of his petition.
- Who
- Ramesh Upadhyay petitioned against spiritual leader Rambhadracharya; the State opposed the petition.
- What
- The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking registration of an FIR over alleged objectionable remarks.
- When
- The order was reported as dated September 1; the article says the police complaint was submitted on October 8, 2025, creating a date discrepancy.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Allahabad High Court in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, and concerned a complaint made to police in Varanasi.
- Why
- The court found that the petitioner should first pursue the statutory remedy before a magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
Petitioner's Position
State and Court's Position
Alleged remarks
Petitioner's Position
The petitioner said Rambhadracharya's statements caused grave mental agony, humiliation and insult to the Upadhyay community and hurt the religious sentiments of followers of the Shankaracharyas.
State and Court's Position
The State did not accept the high court petition as the proper route and argued that the petitioner had not first used the available statutory procedure.
Request for an FIR
Petitioner's Position
The petitioner said he had complained to the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, but no FIR had been registered.
State and Court's Position
The State argued that he should have approached the concerned police station and then sought relief from a magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
High court jurisdiction
Petitioner's Position
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 after alleging police inaction.
State and Court's Position
The court held that a person ordinarily should not invoke Article 226 for non-registration of an FIR before exhausting the remedy before the magistrate.
- Petitioner
- Ramesh Upadhyay of Varanasi
- Respondent
- Spiritual leader Rambhadracharya, founder and head of Tulsi Peeth in Chitrakoot
- Allegations
- Remarks allegedly caused humiliation to the Upadhyay community and hurt religious sentiments concerning the four Shankaracharyas
- Police complaint
- Submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, according to the petitioner
- Legal provision
- Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Court's ruling
- The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy under law
- Reported date issue
- The article gives the order date as September 1 but places the police complaint on October 8, 2025