'Approach Competent Authority': Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Challenging LoP Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Election
The Allahabad High Court on Monday allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Plea to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat.A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the PIL plea as withdrawn while allowing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the...
The Allahabad High Court on Monday allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Plea to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the PIL plea as withdrawn while allowing the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as far as it is permissible in law.
The bench passed this order as the petitioner (S Vignesh Shishira), after arguing in person for around 20 minutes, sought withdrawal of his PIL with the liberty to approach the competent authority under the Citizenship Act 1955 for raising his grievance.
Importantly, before the dismissal of the PIL plea, dramatic scenes unfolded in the courtroom. The bench had to rise midway after it took exception to the petitioner's advocate's incessant arguments.
The situation escalated when the Petitioner's Advocate (Ashok Pandey) insisted on continuing his argument despite the division bench expressing reluctance to hear the case further.
Significantly, during the hearing, which lasted more than 90 minutes, the Court repeatedly asked Advocate Pandey to conclude his arguments, noting that he had already been heard for a substantial amount of time.
For the uninitiated, Karnataka BJP Worker S. Vignesh Shishir, through advocate Ashok Pandey, filed the PIL plea to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP on the ground that he is not an Indian Citizen but a British citizen and thus ineligible to contest the LS Polls.
Essentially, after extensively hearing the Petitioner's Advocate (Ashok Pandey) and the Petitioner (S. Vignesh Shishir) for around 90 minutes, the bench stated that it was reserving order in the matter. However, Advocate Pandey insisted on arguing further as he submitted that he had "a lot of submissions" to make.
"Abhi aur suniye hume, arguments karne dijiye. Bolne dijiye. Yahan 20-20 din behas suni jaati hai aur aap hume ek ghanta nahin sun rahe" (Please hear me further, let me argue... The matters are argued for 20-20 days here, and you are not hearing me even for one hour)
"Dekhiye ho gaya. Aap (Advocate Pandey) aise karenge to hume uthna pad jayega (we will have to rise). Pura din kaam karna hai hume, aise mood kharab karke kaise hoga kaam. Behas jin mamlon mein 20-20 din suno jaati hai wo matters sunne layak bhi hote hain, the bench said. [We have to work the whole day, how will we work if we spoil our mood like this. Those matters which are heard for 20-20 days also deserve to be heard.]
However, in response to the Court's observations, Advocate Pandey urged the bench to "not get personal". At that moment, the situation reached a boiling point as the bench, seemingly exasperated, remarked,
"Enough! You have tested our patience. You can't take the Court for granted. We have given you enough chances. Now, we are rising. Looks like you don't want us to hear other matters”.
As the judges were leaving the courtroom, Advocate Pandey remarked: "Ye antim adalat nahin hai" (HC is not the final court).
Case title - S. Vignesh Shishir vs. Rahul Gandhi, Member Of Lok Sabha And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 416