Lucknow, April 20, 2026 — Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, recused himself today from hearing Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 673 of 2026, filed by petitioner S. Vignesh Shishir against Sri Rahul Gandhi and three others, after the petitioner published a series of social media posts that the Court found amounted to casting aspersions against it.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, appearing in person, had filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the rejection of his application under Section 173(4) BNSS — a provision that relates to directing police investigation into the alleged dual citizenship of Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The matter was first listed on April 16, 2026, when it was found that certain pages of the annexed application were missing. The petitioner was given time to file a supplementary affidavit and the matter was posted for April 17, 2026.
Order of April 17, 2026 and the Legal Issue of Notice
On April 17, 2026, after hearing all parties — including the Deputy Solicitor General of India, the Government Advocate, Additional Government Advocates, and Central Government Counsel — the Court pronounced a judgment in open court. However, before the judgment could be typed and signed, Justice Vidyarthi came across a Full Bench judgment of the same Court in Jagannath Verma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 SCC OnLine Alld 11859, which held that a prospective accused is entitled to an opportunity of being heard in a criminal revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The Court noted that the same principle appeared applicable to a petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging the rejection of a Section 173(4) BNSS application. Since all counsel — including the Deputy Solicitor General — had categorically stated during hearing that no notice was required to be issued to the proposed accused (opposite party no. 1), the Court found their assistance on this point of law to have been incorrect. The Court therefore declined to sign the already-dictated order and instead posted the matter for further hearing on April 20, 2026, to allow parties to address this question.
Petitioner’s Social Media Posts
Following the order of April 17, 2026, the petitioner posted multiple messages on social media. In one post, he alleged “MASSIVE BACK ROOM EXERCISE BY CONGRESS PARTY AND LATE NIGHT CALLS TO ALL FROM DEEP STATE ELEMENTS” and stated this amounted to “FOUL PLAY.” He also wrote that R&AW and the Intelligence Bureau were watching everyone and described the matter as a “Real War.” In another post, he urged the general public to write to the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu cognizance of what he described as a “MASSIVE KHELA HOBE” that had occurred between the evening of April 17 and the morning of April 18. A third post requested the people of India to urge the Chief Justice of India to direct the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to upload the judgment dictated in open court.
Court’s Observations and Recusal
Justice Vidyarthi, in today’s order, noted that these messages indicated the petitioner had lost faith in the Court and was casting aspersions on it for not uploading the order — a decision that had been clearly explained in the signed and uploaded order of April 17, 2026. The Court observed that, while in a subsequent post the petitioner sought public opinion on whether to continue before this Court and stated he believed in it, the earlier posts had already cast aspersions, making it inappropriate for the Court to continue hearing the matter.
The petitioner, in person, requested the Court not to recuse and submitted that none of his posts were directed against the Court. He also referred to a Times of India report in which he had reportedly praised the April 17 judgment. The Court, however, noted that its decisions are not influenced by a litigant’s appreciation, and found the social media posts to be sufficient reason to recuse.
Criticism of Counsel
Before parting with the case, Justice Vidyarthi placed on record his concern that all the counsel present — including the Deputy Solicitor General, Government Advocate, and Additional Government Advocates — had failed in their duty to provide correct legal assistance to the Court. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of U.P. and others, (2019) 6 SCC 441, emphasising that lawyers, as officers of the court, are duty-bound to place correct legal positions before the Court, regardless of whether it serves the interest of the party they represent. The Deputy Solicitor General’s submission that Union of India was only a formal party and therefore he could not be faulted was expressly rejected, as he had given a categorical answer to the Court’s specific question during hearing.
The Court noted, however, that despite the lack of correct legal assistance, it had independently located the binding Full Bench precedent and taken corrective steps — thereby preventing an erroneous order from being passed.
What Happens Next
Justice Vidyarthi has directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for nomination of another Bench. He also clarified that the parties will have a full opportunity to address the question of whether notice must be issued to the proposed accused (opposite party no. 1) before the newly nominated Bench.
Case: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 673 of 2026 — S. Vignesh Shishir v. Sri Rahul Gandhi and 3 Others, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Order dated April 20, 2026.
