Delhi High Court seeks Centre's response on Rahul Gandhi citizenship plea

Subramanian Swamy's petition alleges that Gandhi violated Article 9 of the Indian Constitution by 'voluntarily disclosing' to the British authorities that he held British citizenship

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Union Government to clarify its position on a petition by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, seeking action regarding Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s alleged dual citizenship, according to a report by Live Law. 

 

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela requested the Centre’s counsel to provide instructions before issuing any order.

 

The court postponed the hearing to January 13, 2025, following the Centre’s request for more time to appoint a new counsel. The existing lawyer had recently been designated as a senior advocate, necessitating a reassignment.

What is Subramanian Swamy's petition? 

Swamy’s petition alleges that Gandhi violated Article 9 of the Indian Constitution by “voluntarily disclosing” to the British authorities that he held British citizenship, which would disqualify him from Indian citizenship. Swamy claims to have sent multiple representations to the Ministry of Home Affairs since 2019, seeking action on the matter but has received no response.

 

The plea also references documents from a United Kingdom-registered company, Backops Limited, in which Gandhi was listed as a director and a British national in its 2005 and 2006 filings. Swamy argues that this disclosure contravenes Indian citizenship laws, calling for a final resolution of his complaint.

 

In a related development, BJP leader Vignesh Shishir, who has a pending public interest litigation in the Allahabad High Court seeking a Central Bureau Of Investigation probe into Gandhi’s citizenship status, updated the Delhi High Court about his case.

 

This matter follows a 2019 Supreme Court dismissal of a similar plea to bar Gandhi from contesting elections, wherein the apex court remarked that mere claims of dual citizenship lack sufficient merit.