A special MP-MLA court in Lucknow on Wednesday concluded arguments in a criminal complaint seeking directions for the registration of a first information report against Rahul Gandhi, the Lok Sabha member from Rae Bareli and Leader of the Opposition in the lower House, over allegations linked to his citizenship status. After hearing both sides, the court reserved its order and fixed January 28, 2026 for pronouncement of the decision.The proceedings were held before Special Judge and Third Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma, who is designated to hear cases involving legislators. The complaint seeks a judicial direction to the police to register an FIR, contending that statements and documents placed in the public domain raise questions that merit a criminal probe. Counsel for the complainant argued that the court’s supervisory powers under criminal procedure warranted such a direction after consideration of the material presented.
Defence submissions countered that the plea was misconceived and politically motivated, asserting that citizenship matters involving elected representatives have already been addressed through appropriate constitutional and statutory processes. The defence maintained that no offence was disclosed that would justify the registration of an FIR and urged the court to dismiss the complaint at the threshold. Lawyers representing Gandhi stressed that repeated attempts to litigate settled questions amounted to abuse of process and risked converting the criminal justice system into a forum for political contestation.
The matter arises against the backdrop of a broader political dispute that has periodically resurfaced around the opposition leader’s personal documentation. The complainant’s side told the court that alleged discrepancies warranted examination by investigating authorities, while the defence pointed to prior adjudications and official records to argue that the issue lacked legal substance. The court heard detailed submissions on the scope of judicial intervention at the pre-FIR stage, including whether a magistrate may compel police action when alternative remedies exist.
The special MP-MLA courts were created to ensure expeditious handling of cases involving legislators, a mandate that framed the pace and scheduling of the hearing. Legal practitioners following the case noted that such courts often focus narrowly on procedural compliance before entering the merits, particularly when a complaint seeks directions rather than the court taking cognisance of an offence directly. The judge indicated that the order would address the maintainability of the plea as well as the threshold for directing registration of an FIR.
Outside the courtroom, the case has drawn attention because of Gandhi’s position as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, a role that places him at the centre of parliamentary scrutiny of the government. Party colleagues have described the complaint as part of a pattern of legal challenges aimed at distracting the opposition leadership, while critics argue that questions raised in the public domain deserve institutional examination. The court proceedings themselves remained confined to legal arguments, with no evidence recorded at this stage.
Legal analysts say the January 28 order will likely clarify how magistrates should approach demands for FIRs in politically sensitive cases, balancing the complainant’s right to seek investigation against safeguards against frivolous or vexatious litigation. Past rulings have emphasised that a magistrate must be satisfied that a cognisable offence is disclosed on the face of the complaint before directing police action. The reserved order is expected to engage with these principles in the context of allegations concerning an elected representative.
The hearing also touched upon jurisdictional issues, including whether the special court at Lucknow was the appropriate forum given the nature of the allegations and the places where the impugned acts were said to have occurred. Defence counsel argued that the complaint failed to establish territorial jurisdiction, while the complainant contended that the public dissemination of the statements in question conferred jurisdiction. The judge indicated that these objections would be addressed in the order.