The Allahabad High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to verify a complaint alleging that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi holds assets disproportionate to his known income, directing agencies to examine the accusations.
Allahabad: 5th May, The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that had claimed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi holds citizenship of both India and the United Kingdom (UK). The PIL had alleged that because of this, he is not qualified to be a Member of Parliament under Article 84(A) of the Indian Constitution, which mentions the conditions for eligibility to contest Lok Sabha elections.
The Centre informed the Allahabad High Court that a plea regarding Rahul Gandhi’s alleged dual citizenship is “under process” and expected to be resolved by December 19. A petition has been filed asking for a CBI investigation into Gandhi’s citizenship status, questioning his eligibility for public office amid claims of British citizenship.
A PIL filed today in the Allahabad High Court seeks a CBI investigation into Rahul Gandhi’s alleged British citizenship. Documents suggesting his ties to the British government raise questions about his Indian citizenship. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also raised these concerns. Dual citizenship for Indian politicians is controversial and could impact national sovereignty and conflicts of interest.
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea for dual citizenship for Indians abroad, stating that this decision falls under Parliament’s jurisdiction. The court recognized the national security implications and emphasized that only Parliament can decide on this matter. The existing legal framework does not support dual citizenship, and Indians can only obtain Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status, not dual citizenship.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) voiced concerns over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), challenging the government’s claim of aiding persecuted minorities. They highlighted the Act’s selectiveness in excluding certain groups and raised issues about dual citizenship. The IUML emphasized the importance of a fair and non-discriminatory refugee policy. They assert that the CAA’s implementation discriminates and lacks logical connection with its purported goal.