Rahul Gandhi Citizenship Row | 'Court Maligned': Allahabad HC Slams BJP Worker For Social Media Posts Casting Aspersions; Judge Recuses

In a significant development, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today RECUSED from the case filed by BJP worker Vignesh Shishir seeking an FIR against LoP Rahul Gandhi over his alleged British citizenship

The recusal came as the Court took strong exception to certain social media posts and media interviews by Shishir, noting that they cast aspersions on the Court and maligned its dignity after the bench proposed to issue a notice to Gandhi on his plea.

Justice Vidyarthi orally observed that the petitioner had posted material on social media alleging "foul play" by the Court and that the entire episode gave an 'unfair treatment' to him.

Expressing strong dissatisfaction with the controversial social media posts, Justice Vidyarthi orally remarked that he 'regretted' hearing the case, as he had been used by Applicant-Shishir for his own 'political mileage'. 

"Piche keechad uchala jana kaise uchit hai? Adalat ke against bolna sahi hai? Media mein kaise kaise statement de rahe hain...apne political akhade ka Court ko hissa bana rahe hain". (How is it justified to sling mud behind our backs? Is it right to speak against the Court? What kind of statements are you making in the media...you are making the Court a part of your political arena.)"

Noting that Shishir was seeking public opinion through his social media posts on whether he should continue the matter before this bench and that he sought indulgence of the CJI in this matter, the Court stated, "The messages posted on social media amount to casting aspersions on the Court...The Court is of the opinion that he has maligned the Court".

Significantly, both the Government advocate and the Deputy Solicitor General of India conceded that Shishir's social media posts cannot be defended. 

The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the assistance of the government advocates and DySGI for not placing the correct legal position on the issue of whether a notice should be issued to the prospective Accused/Gandhi before passing an order.

In his defence, Shishir submitted that the posts were not intended for the Court but for those pressurising him to back out of this Case. He also sought to place before the bench his posts wherein he had lauded the bench's earlier order (only dictated, not signed) for lodging an FIR against Gandhi.

"I appreciated your earlier order on social media. Please see those posts also where I said that it was a landmark order. But today what is being passed is one-sided order. Plea check my other posts too," Shishir argued.

To this submission, Justice Vidyarthi said that the court does not need appreciation from anyone and that the petitioner could make all these submissions before the appellate Court

A detailed order in the matter is awaited.

This development comes two days after the bench effectively deferred the operation of the judgment already dictated in open court on April 17, directing that an FIR be lodged against Gandhi. The bench, in its order uploaded on April 18, effectively halted this order before it could be typed and signed.

In its 2-page order, the Court had observed that Gandhi might be entitled to an opportunity to be heard. The bench had decided to withhold the verdict after coming across a Full Bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Jagannnath Verma and others Vs State of U.P. and others 2014.

In this case, it was held that a Magistrate's order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of a case and for investigation is not an interlocutory order and is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.

Relying on this verdict, Justice Vidyarthi noted that in such revision proceedings, the prospective accused or the person suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken. Shishir's petition has, however, been filed under Section 528 BNSS [S. 482 CrPC].

Importantly, the order noted that during the hearing, the court put a specific question to the petitioner and other counsel as to whether a notice was required to be issued to the opposite party no. 1.

"All of them submitted that there is no requirement of issuance of a notice to the proposed accused while deciding an application under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS and, therefore, no notice needs to be issued to the proposed accused-opposite party no.1 while deciding an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the validity of an order rejecting an application under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS," the order records.

Therefore, noting that Gandhi might have to be heard in the matter, the Court had posted the matter for further hearing today to allow the parties to submit their arguments on this aspect [whether or not Gandhi should be issued a notice and be allowed to address the bench].

But before the parties could argue, the bench decided to recuse from the matter and the matter will now be posted before another bench after nomination from the Chief Justice.

Background of the case

Our readers may recall that on April 17, the Allahabad HC pronounced the operative part of its order in open Court, directing the lodging of an FIR against the Gandhi on a petition moved by a Karnataka BJP Worker (S. Vignesh Shishir).

Shishir had moved the HC after an ACJM Court in Lucknow, in January this year, rejected his petition seeking an FIR against Gandhi under various provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Official Secrets Act, the Passport Act and the Foreigners Act.

Before the HC, the applicant (Shishir) submitted that Gandhi is a UK Citizen and had incorporated a company named M/S Backops Ltd., which was registered in August 2003.

It was further submitted that Gandhi categorically admitted and voluntarily declared his nationality as British, having a Director Identification ID and London and Hampshire addresses.

It was also claimed that Gandhi had submitted the Company's annual returns in October 2005 and October 2006, listing his nationality as British. Thereafter, the said Company was dissolved by filing a dissolution application in February 2009.

Furthermore, it was submitted that Gandhi contested the 2004 Lok Sabha Elections, admitting and disclosing the ownership of M/S Backops Ltd. and his foreign bank account with Barclays Bank, London Branch, UK.

Shishir further argued that Gandhi should face charges under the Foreigners Act, the Passport Act and even the Official Secrets Act.

Advocate Vindeshwari Pandey assisted applicant Shishir.

Government Advocate V.K. Singh, along with AGA-I Yogesh Kumar Singh, AGA Mayank Sinha, represented the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

DSGI SB Pandey, along with Advocates Raj Kumar Singh and Anand Dwivedi, appeared for the Union of India