The Allahabad Excessive Court docket on Tuesday rejected a plea filed by a practising advocate in search of a route for registration of an FIR towards Jagadguru Rambhadracharya over his alleged remarks regarding the ‘Upadhyay’ group and revered non secular personalities, together with the Shankaracharyas.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena noticed that an individual aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR should ordinarily first exhaust the statutory treatments out there underneath the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) earlier than invoking the Excessive Court docket’s extraordinary jurisdiction underneath Article 226.
The Court docket thus dismissed the writ petition filed by Advocate Ramesh Upadhyay. Nonetheless, he was granted liberty to avail an applicable treatment underneath regulation.
Case in short
In his Legal Writ petition, the petitioner claimed that he belongs to the ‘Upadhyay’ group and alleged that sure statements made by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya precipitated “grave psychological agony, humiliation and insult” to him and different members of the group.
The petitioner alleged that Jagadguru Rambhadracharya referred to Upadhyays as “नीच/अधम” (low/inferior) and likewise described the 4 Shankaracharyas as ‘फर्जी’ (faux), thereby hurting the non secular sentiments of a number of followers.
The petitioner alleged that the statements and movies containing them have been publicly circulated on social media platforms, together with YouTube.
The petitioner additional expressed apprehension for his personal security and that of his household, alleging that Rambhadracharya might use his affect to hurt him or potential witnesses.
The petitioner apprised the Court docket that he had submitted a criticism by the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, on October 8, 2025, in search of registration of an FIR towards Rambhadracharya underneath applicable penal provisions; nonetheless, no FIR had been registered.
The State, alternatively, opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had not approached the involved police station and had straight approached the Excessive Court docket with out first availing the treatment underneath Part 175(3) BNSS earlier than the Justice of the Peace.
The State additionally disputed receipt of the October 8 letter, mentioning that there was no proof of receipt or postal monitoring on file.
Excessive Court docket’s observations
On the outset, the bench famous that though the Excessive Court docket has the facility to difficulty writs underneath Article 226, such jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily shouldn’t be exercised the place an efficacious different treatment is accessible. The Court docket remarked thus:
“This Court docket is of the thought of view that if an individual has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or that having been registered, a correct investigation will not be being performed, then the treatment of the aggrieved particular person is to not apporach the Excessive Court docket underneath Article 226 of the Structure, however to method the Justice of the Peace involved underneath Part 156(3) CrPC. [Section 175(3) BNSS].”
The Bench additional held that the treatment earlier than the Justice of the Peace is “not merely another” however “the first and most popular treatment that have to be exhausted earlier than approaching the Excessive Court docket underneath Article 226”.
The Court docket emphasised that Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS present an efficient statutory mechanism for grievances referring to FIR registration and investigation.
“To entertain a writ petition within the first occasion, with out the petitioner having approached the Justice of the Peace, successfully outcomes on this Court docket performing as a discussion board of first occasion, thereby fully bypassing the structured statutory scheme, which is impermissible“.
The Court docket mentioned the statutory scheme will not be a mere formality however displays a deliberate legislative design to make sure that grievances are addressed on the applicable degree earlier than constitutional treatments are invoked.
Moreover, the Court docket famous that it was itself disputed whether or not the petitioner had approached any police authority for lodging the FIR earlier than submitting the writ petition.
On this context, the Court docket expressed concern a few “rising development” of litigants approaching the HC underneath Article 226, in search of instructions to the police to register an FIR, with out first exhausting the statutory treatments out there underneath the BNSS.
Aside from this, in its order, referring to Lalita Kumari Judgment, the Court docket additionally noticed that the police can’t keep away from their statutory obligation of registering an offence the place a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Nonetheless, the Court docket clarified that ‘Lalita Kumari’ doesn’t allow an aggrieved particular person to bypass the statutory treatments when the police fail to discharge that obligation.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of advantage. Nonetheless, the Court docket granted the petitioner liberty to avail an applicable treatment underneath regulation, if suggested.
Case title – Ramesh Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw AB) 653
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 653
