Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed in the Rahul Gandhi citizenship case, the Single Judge Bench of Subhash Vidyarthi, J., recused itself from the matter, noting that the petitioner in his social media posts had cast aspersions on the Court for not uploading the order as dictated in open court due to the later discovery of a contrary precedent. The Court also noted that the counsels and the petitioner had misled the Court on the point of law that it had sought assistance on.
Background
The petitioner, a Bharatiya Janta Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh member, filed the present application seeking quashing of the judgment passed by the Trial Court wherein his application seeking direction of registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition and Member of Parliament. He sought registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi under Sections 318, 335, 340, 236, 237, 61, 148,147,152, 238, and 241 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 3, 5, and 6 Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Sections 12 and 13 Passport Act, 1967, and Section 14(B) and 14(C) Foreigners Act, 1946.
The petitioner contended that Rahul Gandhi was a UK citizen and had incorporated a company named Backops Ltd. (the Company) in the UK in 2003. He also allegedly declared his nationality as British as per the Companies House, United Kingdom, submitted annual returns of the Company, and dissolved the Company in 2009. He further alleged that while contesting the 2004 Lok Sabha Elections, Rahul Gandhi filed an affidavit along with a nomination form, thereby admitting and mentioning the ownership of the Company and his foreign bank account.
The petitioner also contended that a notice was issued to Rahul Gandhi on 29 April 2019 by the Director (Citizenship), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (the Director), due to a complaint.
On 9 March 2026, the Court directed the production of the complete record related to the notice issued by the Director. Thereafter, on the next date, the Court perused the said record and allowed the impleadment of the Government of India.
Further, on 17 April 2026, during the hearing, a question was put by the Court to the petition and the counsels as to whether a notice was required to be issued to Rahul Gandhi. All of them submitted that there was no requirement of issuance of a notice to the proposed accused while deciding an application under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Therefore, no notice needed to be issued to Rahul Gandhi while deciding an application under Section 528 BNSS, which challenged the validity of an order rejecting an application filed under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS.
Thereafter, the Court dictated the judgment in open court. However, before the judgment could be typed and signed, the Court came across a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 11859, wherein the Full Bench held that an order of a Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation, is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC. In revision proceedings under Section 397, the prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is suspected of having committed the crime, is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision.
Accordingly, the Court stated that the application under Section 528 BNSS should not be decided without issuing notice to Rahul Gandhi, as the parties needed to be given an opportunity to address the Court on this aspect.
After the 17 April order was passed, the petitioner made three social media posts talking about an alleged conspiracy from State elements and the Congress Party. He posted another message urging people to urge the Chief Justice of India to direct the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court at the Lucknow Bench to upload the 17 April order, as the matter pertains to the national security of India and concerns the larger public interest of every Indian citizen.
Analysis
Noting the statements made by the petitioner on social media, the Court stated that he was casting aspersions against the Court as the Court had not yet signed and uploaded the 17 April order, which had been pronounced in open court.
“The messages indicate that the petitioner has lost faith in this Court.”
The Court noted that the petitioner had posted yet another message on social media seeking public opinion on whether he should request the Court to issue notice to Rahul Gandhi and seek his personal appearance. He also stated that he fully believed in the Court and the Supreme Court.
The Court remarked that the first three messages indicated that he had cast aspersions on this Court, but thereafter, he sought a public opinion as to whether he should proceed with the matter before this Court.
Furthermore, the Court noted that on 17 April, the petitioner stated that he appreciated the judgment pronounced by the Court, and the same was reported in the Times of India. The Court remarked, “The Courts do not get influenced by the appreciation of litigants. However, the messages quoted above, posted after passing of the order dated 17 April, amount to casting aspersions on this Court, and keeping those in consideration, I find it appropriate to recuse from hearing this case.”
On the aspect of Section 528 BNSS, the Court stated that it was pained to say that the petitioner had misled the Court about the legal position as to whether a notice is required to be issued to the proposed accused in a petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging an order rejecting an application under Section 173 (4) BNSS. The Court recorded in the 17 April order that this question was put to all the counsels appearing for the parties, including the Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) and the government advocate assisted by the additional government advocate and other lawyers, and all of them categorically stated that there was no need to issue notice to Rahul Gandhi. However, the Court issued notice due to the decision in Jagannath Verma (supra).
The Court stated that though the aforesaid principle was laid down in the context of a revision under Section 397 CrPC, the petition under Section 528 BNSS also challenges the validity of an order rejecting an application under Section 173(4) BNSS, which is substantially akin to a revision and, therefore, the aforesaid principle laid down by the Full Bench in Jagannath Verma (supra) appeared to be applicable.
Rejecting the DSGI’s submission that he could not be faulted for not providing correct assistance to the Court on the question of law as the Union of India was a formal party, the Court stated that it can request assistance on a question of law from any of the counsels, and being officers of the Court, they should assist. The DSGI is a designated Senior Advocate, and the Court can certainly request assistance on a question of law. Moreover, the Court noted that when it had asked the question during the hearing, he had not declined to answer the question on the ground that he was not representing a contesting party. Rather, he had given a categorical answer that there was no requirement to issue notice to Rahul Gandhi.
In this regard, the Court referred to Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of U.P., (2019) 6 SCC 441, and remarked that it was pained to note that the counsels appearing in the present case failed to perform their duty of assisting the Court fairly as per the level expected by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned case.
The Court stated that although it is the duty of the Court to render justice by passing appropriate orders, the Court is entitled to receive assistance from counsel in the discharge of this duty.
“Lack of proper assistance creates a hurdle in expeditious dispensation of justice.”
In the present case, although the correct legal position was not placed before the Court and the Court had pronounced an order, it later corrected the same after discovering the relevant law laid down in Jagannath Verma (supra), thereby preventing an erroneous order from being passed.
“Instead of admitting the mistake in placing the correct position before the Court, the petitioner blamed the Court for not uploading the order that was dictated in open court and has created an unpleasant situation leading this court to recuse from hearing of the case.”
Regarding the contention that the law laid down in Jagannath Verma (supra) was not applicable in the present case, the Court reiterated that in the 17 April order, it had left this issue open for adjudication after hearing the parties.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court held that it did not deem it appropriate to hear the matter any further and recused itself from hearing the matter since the petitioner had publicly cast aspersions on the Court on social media. The Court directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for nomination of another Bench and stated that the said Bench would hear the parties on the question of law raised regarding Section 528 BNSS.
[S. Vignesh Shishir v. Rahul Gandhi, Application u/S 528 BNSS No. 673 of 2026, decided on 20-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Petitioner in person
For the respondent: Government Advocate Dr. V.K. Singh, AGA-I Yogesh Kumar Singh, AGA Mayank Sinha, DSGI S.B. Pandey, Advocate Raj Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel Anand Dwivedi
