PRAYAGRAJ, Sept. 1 -- Congress MP and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has approached the Allahabad high court against the decision of a Varanasi court, which remanded a case back to the additional chief judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in connection with a matter seeking registration of an FIR against Rahul over his 2024 remarks about Sikhs made during an event in the United States. The matter is listed before a single bench of justice Sameer Jain, who will hear his criminal revision petition on September 1. The original application was filed by Nageshwar Mishra of Varanasi before the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate, Varanasi. After hearing the matter on November 28, 2024, the ACJM court rejected the plea, observing that the speech in question was delivered in America and therefore fell outside its jurisdiction. Mishra challenged the rejection before the sessions court, which was accepted by the court of special judge (MP/MLA) on July 21. Allowing the revision, the revisional court directed the ACJM to hear the matter afresh. The case stems from a statement allegedly made by Rahul during a programme in September 2024 in the United States, where he reportedly said that the environment in India was "not good for Sikhs". The remark drew protests and was labeled by some as provocative and divisive. Mishra initially attempted to lodge an FIR at Sarnath police station in Varanasi, but when he was unsuccessful, he moved the court seeking directions for FIR registration. The judicial magistrate (II) dismissed the application on November 28, 2024, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the speech being made abroad. After this, Nageshwar Mishra filed a revision petition in the sessions court, which was accepted by the court of special judge (MP/MLA) on July 21. Rahul has now filed a revision petition in the high court, arguing that the Varanasi court's order is erroneous, illegal, and beyond jurisdiction. The revisionist (Rahul Gandhi) has sought a stay on the order of the Varanasi court during the pendency of the case before the high court....