The Delhi High Court on Wednesday inquired into the status of a representation by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy regarding Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship, directing the Centre to provide a detailed report. The representation questions the legitimacy of Gandhi’s Indian citizenship, alleging that he had declared himself a British citizen to the UK authorities.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, has scheduled the next hearing for March 26. This move comes in response to a petition by Swamy, who claims that Gandhi disclosed his British nationality to the British government, potentially violating the Indian Constitution and the Citizenship Act.
In 2019, Swamy sent a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) asserting that Gandhi, by holding a British passport, had voluntarily renounced his Indian citizenship, which, according to him, should result in the cessation of his Indian nationality under Article 9 of the Indian Constitution. Swamy’s plea expressed frustration over the lack of response or action from the Ministry regarding his numerous representations on the matter.
During the proceedings, the MHA was referenced as having issued a communication to Gandhi in April 2019, requesting him to clarify the facts surrounding his citizenship within two weeks. Despite this, the status of the government’s investigation into the allegations remains unclear.
Further complicating the matter, BJP worker S Vignesh Shishir from Karnataka, who has filed a similar petition in the Allahabad High Court, argued that Swamy’s plea might be redundant. He pointed out that the Centre had indicated to the Allahabad High Court that a decision on the representation was imminent. Shishir’s comments led to discussions on whether the Delhi High Court should continue hearing the case, given the potential overlap with proceedings in Allahabad.
The Delhi High Court, however, clarified its position, stating that it was not looking to make a substantive judgment on the issue but merely sought to ensure that there was a resolution on the representation made by Swamy. The court emphasized its limited role in this case to obtaining a procedural update from the government regarding the actions taken based on Swamy’s complaint.
