The bench, comprising Justices Attau Rehman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, scheduled the next hearing for the week commencing April 21. This decision follows the Centre's request for an eight-week extension, which the court declined, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution.
The Public Interest Litigation was filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, a resident of Karnataka and reportedly associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party . Shishir contends that he possesses documents and emails from British authorities indicating that Gandhi is listed as a British citizen. He argues that under Indian law, dual citizenship is prohibited, and acquiring foreign citizenship results in the automatic termination of Indian citizenship.
In his plea, Shishir references Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which states that any Indian citizen who voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country ceases to be an Indian citizen. He asserts that Gandhi's alleged British citizenship violates this provision, rendering his election to the Lok Sabha invalid.
The petitioner also highlights previous efforts to address this issue, noting that he had submitted representations to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2019, urging the cancellation of Gandhi's Indian citizenship. Despite these submissions, Shishir claims that no decisive action was taken, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.
During the hearing, Deputy Solicitor General Surya Bhan Pandey, representing the Centre, informed the court that the representation regarding Gandhi's citizenship status remains under consideration. Pandey requested an additional two months to reach a decision, citing the need for comprehensive examination of the matter. The court, however, deemed a four-week period sufficient and scheduled the subsequent hearing accordingly.
This case is not the first instance where Gandhi's citizenship has been called into question. In 2019, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy alleged that Gandhi had declared himself a British citizen in documents submitted to British authorities. Swamy argued that this constituted a violation of the Indian Constitution and the Citizenship Act, which prohibit dual citizenship. He further claimed that the government had issued a show-cause notice to Gandhi seeking clarification on his citizenship status, but received no response.
The current petition also mentions that after the dismissal of an earlier plea, the petitioner conducted further inquiries and obtained new information. Shishir reportedly contacted UK authorities via email to request records regarding Gandhi’s citizenship. According to the petitioner, the UK government acknowledged possessing records related to Gandhi’s British nationality but declined to disclose them without a signed letter of authority from Gandhi himself. The PIL argues that this response implies an admission of Gandhi’s foreign nationality.
Legal experts note that the outcome of this case could have significant implications for Indian electoral politics. If the allegations are proven true, it could lead to the disqualification of a prominent opposition leader and prompt a re-examination of the eligibility criteria for parliamentary candidates.
The Congress party has consistently denied these allegations, asserting that they are politically motivated attempts to discredit Gandhi. Party representatives have emphasized that Gandhi was born and raised in India and holds no other citizenship. They argue that the documents cited by the petitioners are misinterpreted or fabricated to serve partisan interests.
As the April 21 deadline approaches, the Central Government is expected to expedite its review of the representation and provide a clear stance on the matter. The court's insistence on a prompt resolution underscores the importance of addressing such allegations swiftly to maintain the integrity of the democratic process.