E-Paper
Remarks on farmers’ agitation: Agra court revives petition against Kangana Ranaut
In his order, additional district and sessions judge Lokesh Kumar (Court No. 19) set aside the MP/MLA court’s decision and remanded the case back to the same court for reconsideration. The lower court has been directed to decide the case based on the evidence available, after hearing both sides, and to ensure compliance with Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before passing any order as per law.
The court of additional district and sessions judge, Agra, on Wednesday allowed a revision petition filed against BJP MP and actor Kangana Ranaut, setting aside an earlier order of the special MP/MLA court, which had dismissed a complaint filed by an Agra-based lawyer.
The revision petition, filed by advocate Rama Shankar Sharma, challenged the May 6, 2025 order of the MP/MLA court that had dismissed his complaint (Case No. 17865 of 2024) against Ranaut over her alleged remarks on the farmers’ agitation at the Delhi border.
In his order, additional district and sessions judge Lokesh Kumar (Court No. 19) set aside the MP/MLA court’s decision and remanded the case back to the same court for reconsideration. The lower court has been directed to decide the case based on the evidence available, after hearing both sides, and to ensure compliance with Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before passing any order as per law.
The court fixed November 29 as the next date of hearing in lower court.
The revision petition, filed on May 23, 2025, was initially submitted in the court of the district judge, Agra, and later transferred to the court of additional district and sessions judge (Court No. 19) for hearing.
Earlier, while dismissing the case on May 6, the MP/MLA court in Agra had observed that prior sanction from the central or state government or the district magistrate was required under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences related to inciting public unrest. The complainant, however, had not obtained or produced any such sanction.
The MP/MLA court had, therefore, held that the complaint was barred under Section 217 of the BNSS and that the complainant had failed to establish any offence committed by Ranaut, rendering the complaint under Section 226 of the BNSS liable to dismissal.
