The plea also sought a ban on Gandhi’s foreign travel during the pendency of the alleged citizenship issue. A Division Bench comprising Justice A R Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava passed the order on Wednesday.
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad high court has dismissed as withdrawn a fresh public interest litigation (PIL) filed by BJP worker S Vignesh Shishir from Karnataka, who sought the cancellation of Congress leader and Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s Indian citizenship.
This was the third petition moved by the same petitioner raising questions over Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status. (Sourced)
The plea also sought a ban on Gandhi’s foreign travel during the pendency of the alleged citizenship issue. A Division Bench comprising Justice A R Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava passed the order on Wednesday.
This was the third petition moved by the same petitioner raising questions over Gandhi’s citizenship status. Shishir’s earlier two petitions had also been dismissed by the court. In its latest order, the bench permitted the petitioner to withdraw the present petition with the liberty to file a review of the court’s earlier decision dated May 5, 2025.
The bench observed that the petitioner had made a representation to the central government on the issue. “The court cannot enter into the arena unless something legally justified is placed before it,” the bench noted.
During the hearing, the petitioner alleged that Rahul Gandhi entered Vietnam using a British passport and claimed that the United Kingdom’s government had sent the said passport to the Indian authorities. “I have 200 pages to show Gandhi is a citizen of the UK,” Shishir told the court.
However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the arguments and declined to entertain the petition. “Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review of the previous order (May 5),” the bench ordered.
On May 5, 2025, the court disposed of Shishir’s second petition, which alleged that Gandhi holds dual citizenship. At the time, the court had granted the petitioner the option to explore alternative legal remedies.