The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by a practising advocate seeking directions for registration of an FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya over his alleged remarks concerning the ‘Upadhyay’ community and revered religious personalities, including the Shankaracharyas.
A Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena held that a person aggrieved by the non-registration of an FIR must ordinarily exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Advocate Ramesh Upadhyay, who claimed that certain statements allegedly made by Rambhadracharya had caused “grave mental agony, humiliation and insult” to him and other members of the Upadhyay community.
According to the petitioner, Rambhadracharya allegedly referred to Upadhyays as “नीच/अधम” (low/inferior) and described the four Shankaracharyas as “फर्जी” (fake), allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of their followers. The petitioner also claimed that videos containing the alleged statements were circulated publicly on social media platforms, including YouTube.
He further expressed apprehension regarding his and his family’s safety, alleging that Rambhadracharya could use his influence against him or potential witnesses.
The petitioner told the Court that he had submitted a complaint through the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, on October 8, 2025, seeking registration of an FIR under appropriate penal provisions. However, no FIR was registered.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had not approached the concerned police station and had directly moved the High Court without first availing the remedy under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the Magistrate. The State also disputed the receipt of the petitioner’s October 8 letter, noting that no proof of receipt or postal tracking had been placed on record.
At the outset, the Bench observed that while the High Court has the power to issue writs under Article 226, such jurisdiction is discretionary and should ordinarily not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available.
The Court held that where a person has a grievance regarding the non-registration of an FIR or an improper investigation, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS rather than directly invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The Bench emphasised that the remedy before the Magistrate is not merely an alternative but the “primary and preferred remedy” that must ordinarily be exhausted before approaching the High Court.
It further observed that Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS provide an effective statutory mechanism to address grievances concerning FIR registration and investigation. Entertaining such petitions at the first instance, the Court said, would effectively make the High Court a forum of first instance and bypass the statutory scheme.
The Court also noted a “growing trend” of litigants directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 for directions to register FIRs without exhausting remedies available under the BNSS.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari, the Bench observed that the police cannot avoid their statutory duty to register an FIR where a cognizable offence is disclosed. However, it clarified that the judgment does not permit an aggrieved person to bypass the statutory remedies available when the police fail to discharge that duty.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
The post Allahabad High Court rejects plea for FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, cites alternative remedy appeared first on India Legal.