Today, On 6th November, The Delhi High Court informed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has initiated a probe into the issue of Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship. The investigation follows claims that Gandhi, a prominent Indian politician, might hold dual citizenship, a matter that has previously sparked political debate.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court informed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched an inquiry into Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship, stemming from a PIL under consideration in the Allahabad High Court.
A Karnataka BJP member, the petitioner in the Allahabad case, mentioned his PIL, prompting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela to express concern about potential conflicting orders. Emphasizing that two parallel petitions on the same issue cannot proceed, the bench allowed S Vignesh Shishir to submit an affidavit on developments related to his PIL.
Read Also: Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Against Rahul Gandhi Over Alleged ‘Mass Rape’ Remarks
Meanwhile, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s plea before the Delhi High Court seeks directives for the Ministry of Home Affairs to decide on his request to revoke Gandhi’s Indian citizenship.
In his plea, Swamy requested that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) provide a status report on his representation against Rahul Gandhi, who serves as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
Swamy argued that the Allahabad High Court case was unrelated to his own, asserting that his prayers differed entirely. However, Shishir, the petitioner in the Allahabad case, contended that Swamy’s plea created “multiplicity and parallel proceedings.”
The court directed Shishir to file an application to join the petition before it and scheduled the matter for December 6. During the hearing, Shishir informed the court that the Allahabad High Court last heard his petition on October 24 and that the CBI was actively investigating.
He stated,
“I also appeared before the CBI in this case and tendered my very confidential evidence with regard to this matter. The matter is currently under investigation by the CBI.”
Shishir stated,
“Various investigating agencies of the country are conducting the investigation. I have given my objections to the Delhi High Court registrar through an email.”
However, the bench advised that documents should be submitted through the court registry rather than via email.
Swamy drew a distinction between the two petitions, explaining that while Shishir’s plea aimed to initiate criminal prosecution, his own petition asserted that Gandhi was a “citizen of Britain” and therefore not a citizen of India.
Swamy argued,
“Don’t be parasitical and say the prayers are similar and hang on to us. It is clear he cannot be a citizen of two countries; we have proved it through documents where he claims to be a citizen of Britain as well as of India.”
The bench observed,
“The prayers in that petition are too wide. So let him (Shishir) file the documents which he wants.”
In compliance with an earlier Delhi High Court directive, Swamy submitted a copy of the petition pending before the Allahabad High Court regarding Gandhi’s citizenship issue.
According to Swamy’s plea, filed by advocate Satya Sabharwal, a letter was sent to the ministry on August 6, 2019, alleging that Gandhi had “voluntarily disclosed” to the British government his British citizenship, implying he held a British passport.
Previously, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had questioned the Centre on whether it had responded to Shishir’s representation, filed under the Citizenship Act, 1955, which requested an investigation into these claims. Shishir maintained that he had conducted “detailed enquiries” into Gandhi’s alleged British citizenship, gathering additional information.
In contrast, Swamy argued that Gandhi, as an Indian citizen, had breached Article 9 of the Constitution, alongside the Indian Citizenship Act, which would result in him ceasing to be an Indian citizen. Swamy added that he had submitted multiple representations to the ministry regarding his complaint but had received no response or action.