On Tuesday, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected a plea from Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya, who sought to have the ongoing legal proceedings in a Pratapgarh district court related to the alleged burning of copies of Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas quashed. The bench's decision was based on their review of the chargesheet and other evidence on record, which indicated that there was enough evidence to establish a prima facie case against him. As a result, they ruled that he should stand trial in the lower court.

The Samajwadi Party leader had argued that the case against him was filed for political motives and lacked any substantial evidence. Therefore, he believed it would be unjust for him to be subjected to a trial.

The order was issued by a bench presided over by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in response to Maurya's petition. In his petition, Maurya contested both the chargesheet and the summoning order issued by the lower court, which had instructed him to appear in court and participate in the trial.

The bench expressed the opinion that public representatives should avoid engaging in any actions that disrupt communal harmony.

On February 1, 2023, a lawyer named Santosh Kumar Mishra filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the City Kotwali police in Pratapgarh. The FIR named Swami Prasad Maurya, Samajwadi Party MLA Dr. RK Verma, and several others as the accused. The allegations in the FIR were related to the burning of copies of Ramcharitmanas by the protesters.

The FIR alleged that the accused had burned copies of the Hindu holy book, which was considered a serious offense, as it was believed to disrupt communal harmony. 

In opposition to Maurya's plea, Additional Advocate General V K Shahi and government advocate V K Singh argued that the Samajwadi Party leader had a habitual pattern of engaging in acts that disrupted communal harmony. They also pointed out that there was prima facie evidence available against him in the record, which justified him standing trial. Therefore, they contended that the proceedings in the lower court should not be quashed.

It's worth noting that an FIR was also registered at Lucknow's PGI police station in connection with this matter.