E-Paper
Allahabad high court defers order for FIR on Rahul Gandhi in dual citizenship case
During the hearing, the high court reviewed documents presented by the petitioner regarding Rahul Gandhi's alleged British citizenship.
Prefer HTon Google
A single bench of the Allahabad High Court has held back its tentative decision pronounced on Friday to the Uttar Pradesh government to register a first information report (FIR) against the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, in connection with a dual citizenship allegation.
In its order uploaded to the high court’s website on Saturday evening, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi scheduled the next hearing on April 20, observing that it would need to give the opposite parties an opportunity to address the court.
The final order also underlined that it dictated its judgment in open court on Friday (to register the FIR) after being told by lawyers present that it could rule on the petition without hearing the proposed accused.
But before the order could be typed and signed, justice Vidyarthi said, he came across a verdict by the high court’s full bench that indicated Gandhi was entitled to be heard before the verdict.
“In view of the aforesaid legal position, it appears that the application under Section 528 BNSS should not be decided without issuing notice to the opposite party no.1. The parties need to be given an opportunity to address the court on this aspect of the matter. 4. Therefore, list this case on 20.04.2026 for further hearing,” the high court said on the petition by a Bharatiya Janata Party worker, S. Vignesh Shishir, who sought an FIR against Gandhi over allegations that he also held British citizenship.
The complaint was initially filed before the special MP/MLA court in Rae Bareli. However, on the petitioner’s request, the high court transferred the case to Lucknow on December 17, 2025.
On January 28, the MP/MLA court in Lucknow dismissed the plea, prompting the petitioner to approach the high court. On Friday, the judge completed the hearing and ordered an FIR against Rahul Gandhi in the presence of Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey and other lawyers.
The order uploaded on Saturday also recalled that the court had put a specific question to the petitioner and the counsel appearing in the matter, whether a notice was required to be issued to the opposite party, Rahul Gandhi.
But all of them submitted that there was no need for it in deciding an application under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the court said.
“Thereafter, the Court had dictated a judgment in the open court. However, before the judgment could be typed and signed, the Court came across a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannnath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2014 SCC OnLine Alld 11859, wherein the Full Bench has held that an order of a Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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. In proceedings in revision 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.”
An Interlocutory order is a temporary or provisional ruling issued by a court during a lawsuit, before the final judgment. It addresses procedural, administrative, or urgent matters to maintain the status quo or prevent harm, but does not resolve the parties' main legal rights.
The court said the person suspected of having committed a crime was entitled to an opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision.
Asif Rizwi, chairman, UP Congress Legal Cell, said: "I have heard that an order has been passed where Rahul Gandhi has been notified to appear through his counsel and give his views in the high court. The same thing I heard last night, also. However, until we receive a notice from the Honourable High Court, Lucknow Bench, we won't be able to say anything. We will answer the notice after we receive it.”
