The Allahabad High Court postponed the hearing on a PIL challenging Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha election, citing a prior 2016 directive requiring advocate Asok Pande to submit a Rs.25,000 Demand Draft with any plea. The Bench noted the registry had not reported on Pande’s compliance with this directive.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: On June 26, The Allahabad High Court, deferred the hearing in the public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging Congress leader Rahul Gandhi‘s election to the Lok Sabha. This decision followed the Court’s observation regarding a prior directive issued in 2016 concerning the petitioner’s lawyer, advocate Asok Pande.
The Court noted that in a different case in 2016, it had instructed that any plea by advocate Asok Pande would only be entertained if accompanied by a Demand Draft (DD) of Rs.25,000. The Bench, comprising Justices Alok Mathur and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, observed that the registry had not submitted any report regarding Pande’s compliance with this directive.
The Court stated-
“This court has reviewed the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Hindu Personal Law Board Vs. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition No. 8216 (M/B) of 2016. The judgment directed the Registry to examine writ petitions filed by the petitioner’s counsel. As no report has been submitted by the Registry in compliance with this judgment, the Registry is now directed to review the Division Bench’s judgment and submit its report.”
Consequently, the Court called for a report on whether Pande had complied with the 2016 directive and scheduled the case for hearing on July 1.
The PIL was filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, a resident of Karnataka, who challenged Rahul Gandhi’s eligibility to hold the office of Member of Parliament (MP).
The plea claimed that Gandhi is-
“not a citizen of Bharat, but rather a citizen of the United Kingdom.”
Shishir’s petition asserted that Gandhi should be required to explain under what authority he was serving as an MP for the Rae Bareli constituency. To support this claim, the petitioner referred to documents filed by a UK firm, M/s Backdops Limited, where Gandhi was listed as a director from 2003 to 2009.
The plea highlighted that in documents filed by this company in 2006, Gandhi’s nationality was shown as British. This discrepancy forms the crux of the argument that Gandhi is not eligible to serve as an MP in India.
The Allahabad High Court’s direction to the registry to submit a compliance report regarding the 2016 directive will be crucial in determining the next steps in this case. The hearing has been postponed to July 1, where further developments are expected.
A petition filed in the High Court has challenged Rahul Gandhi’s eligibility to continue as a Member of Parliament (MP), citing his 2023 conviction by a Surat trial court in a defamation case. According to the petition, this conviction and subsequent two-year jail sentence render Gandhi ineligible under Section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, which stipulates disqualification on conviction for certain offences.
ALSO READ: ‘Allahabad HC’ = ‘HC of Uttar Pradesh’- PIL Filed Seeking Renaming
The petitioner further argued that despite the Supreme Court staying the conviction, Rahul Gandhi remains disqualified from holding office as an MP. It was emphasized that the Supreme Court did not explicitly permit Gandhi to contest in the recently concluded Lok Sabha Elections. The plea underscored the need to adhere to the legal constraints imposed by the conviction and sentencing.
When the case was presented before the High Court, the Bench referenced a 2016 directive stating that any plea filed by advocate Asok Pande would be considered only if accompanied by a demand draft (DD) of Rs.25,000. This directive was highlighted to ensure that frivolous petitions do not burden the court’s resources.
Advocate Asok Pande informed the Court that he has been “arguing cases uninterrupted since 2016.” He asserted that the registry had never objected to him filing petitions before the High Court, implying a consistent practice that should not be disrupted.
The Court noted that “the registry may not be aware of the order,” suggesting a possible lapse in communication or enforcement of the directive.
However, Pande maintained his stance, stating-
“the registry was aware but never objected to him filing petitions in the High Court.”
This contention led the Court to seek a report from the registry to clarify the situation.
The hearing was then adjourned, with the next session scheduled for July 1. This upcoming hearing will further delve into the issues surrounding Gandhi’s disqualification and the procedural aspects raised by advocate Pande.
ALSO READ: Restricted Two Lawyers from Entering District Court: Allahabad HC
The legal representation for the respondents included Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey, along with advocates Anand Dwivedi and Vijay Vikram Singh, who presented their arguments to counter the petitioner’s claims.
