LUCKNOW: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, has dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition seeking a writ of Quo Warranto against Member of Parliament Shri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci. The plea challenged his right to hold the public office of Member of Lok Sabha from Raibareli on the alleged ground that he is a citizen of Great Britain rather than an Indian citizen, but it was withdrawn after the petitioner failed to place any documentary evidence on record to substantiate the claims.
Background of Repeated Litigation
The petition was filed jointly by Ashok Pandey and Rajneesh Kumar Singh, with the latter appearing in person before the Court. During the proceedings, the petitioner admitted that similar writ petitions raising the identical issue of loss of citizenship by Shri Rahul Gandhi had been filed previously in 2015 and 2019.
In the 2015 matter (Misc. Bench No. 11064 MB of 2015: Shri Ashok Pande v. Shri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci), a Coordinate Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition on December 1, 2015. Relying on Supreme Court precedents—including State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Shah Mohammad & Ors (1969) 1 SCC 771 and the Constitution Bench ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohammand, AIR 1963 SC 645—the Court had ruled that any grievance regarding citizenship lies exclusively before the Central Government pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Subsequently, in the 2019 plea (Misc. Bench No. 11251 MB of 2019: Rajneesh Kr. Singh v. Secretary to the President & Ors.), another Coordinate Bench disposed of the matter on April 19, 2019, noting that a representation dated December 15, 2015, was already pending before the Central Government, and granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate his cause afresh before the competent authority. Following this, petitioner Rajneesh Kumar Singh submitted a representation on May 3, 2019, which was acknowledged by the Central Government on June 29, 2019.
The Court also took note of subsequent litigation during the 2024 general elections: a Public Interest Litigation (WPIL No. 544 of 2024) filed by one S. Vignesh Shishir—with petitioner Ashok Pandey acting as counsel—was withdrawn with liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Another plea (WPIL No. 831 of 2024), which sought a Quo Warranto on the ground of a criminal defamation conviction in Gujarat, was dismissed after the Court was informed that the conviction had been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Appearing in person, Rajneesh Kumar Singh contended that because the competent authority had taken no action on their representations since 2015 and 2019, the High Court should adjudicate the question of citizenship on its merits.
The core submission rested on the allegation that Shri Rahul Gandhi had incorporated a UK-based company named M/s Backops Limited on August 21, 2003, at the Companies House, Registrar of Companies of Britain. The petitioner asserted that in those company records, Rahul Gandhi declared himself to be a Director, a major shareholder, and a British national. Based on this, the petitioner argued that as an alleged British national, Rahul Gandhi could neither remain a citizen of India nor contest elections to the Lok Sabha.
The Union of India was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Sri S.B. Pandey, assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, while the Election Commission of India was represented by Senior Advocate Sri O.P. Srivastava, assisted by Sri Anupriya Srivastava.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
At the outset, the Division Bench voiced strong reservations about entertaining the matter given the history of repetitive filings, observing:
“At the very outset, we were skeptical for entertaining this writ petition, as according to us identical prayers were made by none-else but the petitioners herein, albeit in different permutation and commutation, in at least four writ petitions as enumerated herein-above and the fact remains that the issue relating to citizenship of the private respondent- Shri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci is still pending before the Central Government.”
However, because the petitioner-in-person insisted on placing his arguments, the Bench granted him a hearing. When probed by the judges for documentary substantiation of the assertions, the petitioner could not provide foundational evidence. Addressing the lack of material, the Bench noted:
“Although, in the first blush the arguments of the petitioner-in-person, appeared to be very attractive & having far reaching consequences, however, when he was asked as to what was the basis of his aforesaid submission, the petitioner could not show a single document on records relating to the formation of the company or the records of Registrar of Companies of Britain or any declaration to the effect that the aforesaid Shri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci has declared himself to be a British Citizen.”
The Court further observed that the only document placed before it was wholly insufficient to sustain the claims:
“The only document relied upon by the petitioner-in-person is some alleged letter of confirmation issued by University of Cambridge certifying the study of one Raul Vinci, which according to this Court does not in any manner prove any of the allegations being contested in the present petition.”
Decision
Faced with his inability to produce relevant documents on record, petitioner Rajneesh Kumar Singh submitted upon reconsideration that he be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
Acceding to the request, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court passed no order as to costs.
Case Details: Case Title: Ashok Pandey And Another Versus Sri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci New Delhi And 2 Others
Case No.: WRITC No. 5447 of 2026
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Date: August 31, 2026
