Rahul Gandhi Citizenship Issue in Allahabad HC: ‘Enough! You Have Tested Our Patience,’ Says Bench Over Lawyer’s Persistent Arguments

In a surprising development at the Allahabad High Court, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship took an unexpected turn. The court proceedings were interrupted when the bench decided to rise due to the persistent arguments of the Petitioner’s Advocate, Ashok Pandey.

The situation intensified when Advocate Pandey continued to argue despite the reluctance of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla to hear the case further. The hearing, which lasted over 90 minutes, saw the court repeatedly asking Pandey to conclude his arguments, noting that he had already been given ample time.

The bench eventually rose, with the judges leaving the courtroom. Justice Roy remarked, “Aap chahte hain ki aaj koi dusre matters na sune jaayen to theek hai” (If you want us not to hear other matters today, then fine).

For those unfamiliar, the PIL was filed by Karnataka BJP worker S. Vignesh Shishir through Advocate Ashok Pandey. The plea sought to annul Rahul Gandhi’s election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat, alleging that he is a British citizen and thus ineligible to contest the elections.

After hearing Advocate Pandey and the petitioner for about 90 minutes, the bench stated it would reserve its order. However, Pandey insisted on continuing, claiming he had more submissions to make. When the bench reiterated that they had already heard and noted all arguments, Pandey became impatient, saying, “Abhi aur suniye hume, arguments karne dijiye. Bolne dijiye. Yahan 20-20 din behas suni jaati hai aur aap hume ek ghanta nahin sun rahe” (Please hear me further, let me argue. Matters are argued for 20 days here, and you are not hearing me even for an hour).

The bench responded that hearings lasting 20 days are for substantial arguments. They emphasized that Pandey’s arguments had already been considered. The bench warned, “Dekhiye ho gaya. Aap (Advocate Pandey) aise karenge to hume uthna pad jayega. Pura din kaam karna hai hume, aise mood kharab karke kaise hoga kaam” (We will have to rise if you continue. We have to work the whole day; how will we work if our mood is spoiled like this).

Despite the court’s observations, Pandey urged the bench not to take it personally. The situation escalated, and the bench, exasperated, declared, “Enough! You have tested our patience. You can’t take the Court for granted. We have given you enough chances. Now, we are rising. Looks like you don’t want us to hear other matters.”

As the judges left the courtroom, Pandey remarked, “Ye antim adalat nahin hai” (This is not the final court).

Earlier, the court allowed the petitioner to argue the matter in person, and he was heard for about 20 minutes. Towards the end of his arguments, he requested to withdraw the PIL with the liberty to file a fresh petition. The bench sternly informed him that withdrawing the PIL would result in a cost for wasting the court’s time. The petitioner then requested a ruling on the case’s merits.

During the hearing, the petitioner, Vignesh, attempted to make submissions. Justice Roy asked who would argue, the petitioner or his advocate. When the petitioner expressed his desire to argue, Justice Roy asked Advocate Pandey to let the petitioner speak.

The hearing began with Advocate Pandey arguing that Gandhi is a British citizen and, despite his conviction being stayed by the Supreme Court, he remains ineligible to be an MP. He claimed that Gandhi’s British citizenship disqualified him from contesting Lok Sabha elections and mentioned that the Union Home Ministry had issued a notice to Gandhi in 2019 regarding his citizenship, to which Gandhi had not responded.

The Election Commission’s advocate countered that the issues raised in the PIL could only be addressed in an election petition and noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed a similar plea.

When the bench asked Pandey about the source of his documents claiming Gandhi’s British citizenship, Pandey admitted he downloaded them from the “Internet” but could not specify the site. The petitioner later clarified that the documents were from an official UK website, showing Gandhi’s inactive but not surrendered Director Identification Number (DIN).

The bench advised the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities to determine someone’s citizenship, stating that the court’s hands were tied in a PIL plea.

When Advocate Pandey tried to address the court again, the bench rebuked him, emphasizing the need to maintain court decorum. The court also asked Pandey to provide any Supreme Court judgment stating that an MP/MLA’s disqualification remains even after a conviction is stayed. When Pandey continued to argue, the bench decided to rise.