Is Rahul Gandhi an Indian Citizen? Here’s What Court Says…

Is Rahul Gandhi an Indian Citizen? Here’s What Court Says…

The court was informed that the Centre had written to the UK government seeking details regarding the claims that Mr Gandhi held British citizenship.

RMN News Report

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has disposed of a petition that questioned the Indian citizenship of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court stated that there was no justification to keep the petition pending because the central government was unable to provide a timeline for resolving the petitioner’s complaint.

A bench comprising Justices AR Masoodi and Rajiv Singh presided over the case. The court allowed the petitioner to explore other alternative legal remedies.

The petitioner, identified as S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker from Karnataka, had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Shishir claimed to possess documents and emails from the British government which, he alleged, prove that Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen. According to the petitioner, this British citizenship would render Mr Gandhi ineligible to contest elections in India and prevent him from holding a position as a Lok Sabha member.

[ Also Read: Rahul Gandhi Attacks India Election Body Credibility in US ]

During a previous hearing on April 21, the court was informed that the Centre had written to the UK government seeking details regarding the claims that Mr Gandhi held British citizenship. Following this submission, the bench had granted the central government until May 5 to present the outcome of a representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner’s representation sought the cancellation of Rahul Gandhi’s 2024 Lok Sabha election over the citizenship claims.

Earlier, the petitioner had told the court that he had sent complaints twice to the relevant authority concerning Rahul Gandhi’s alleged dual citizenship, but no action had been taken. Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey had confirmed to the court during a hearing on November 25 that, acting on the petitioner’s representation, the ministry concerned had indeed written to the UK Government and required more time to make a final decision.