Rahul Gandhi Citizenship Issue In Allahabad HC | 'Enough! You Have Tested Our Patience' : Bench Rises Over Lawyer's Incessant Arguments

In a dramatic turn of events at the Allahabad High Court, the proceedings in a PIL Plea concerning Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi's citizenship took an unexpected twist. The bench had to rise 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 a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla expressing its reluctance to hear the case any 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, the PIL plea in question has been filed by Karnataka BJP Worker S. Vignesh Shishir through advocate Ashok Pandey to set aside Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat on the ground that he is not an Indian Citizen but a British citizen and thus ineligible to contest the LS Polls.

Essentially, after hearing the Petitioner's Advocate (Ashok Pandey) and the Petitioner (S. Vignesh Shishir) extensively 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.

To this, when the bench said that it had given enough opportunity to him as well as the petitioner to present their arguments and that all their arguments had been taken note of, Advocate Pandey became impatient and said:

"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) 

In response, the bench stated that hearings in those matters last for 20 days if the arguments are substantial enough. The bench again emphasized that the arguments being made by Advocate Pandey had already been heard and considered by the court.

"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).

As previously mentioned, the Court allowed the petitioner to argue the matter in person, and he was heard for about 20 minutes. During the end of his arguments, he requested the bench to allow him to withdraw the PIL plea with the liberty to file a fresh petition.

In response, the bench sternly informed him that if he withdrew the PIL Plea, the bench would be constrained to impose a cost on him for wasting around 90 minutes of the court's time. Later, the petitioner requested a ruling from the Court on the case's merits.

Court-room exchange

During the hearing, the petitioner (Vignesh) attempted to make submissions before the bench. Justice Roy asked who would argue, the petitioner or his advocate. The petitioner expressed his desire to argue, but Advocate Pandey insisted on arguing instead. However, when the petitioner reiterated his wish to present his argument directly to the bench, Justice Roy asked Advocate Pandey to allow the petitioner to argue the matter.

The hearing in the matter began with Advocate Pandey submitting that Gandhi is a British citizen, and since he was convicted by a surat court (Modi Surname Defamation Case), and though his conviction was stayed by the Top Court, that doesn't mean he became eligible to become an MP.

He also submitted that since Gandhi acquired citizenship of another country (Britain), he ceased to be a citizen of India and, thus, was ineligible to contest Lok Sabha Elections. He also informed the bench that the Union Home Ministry had issued a notice to Rahul Gandhi seeking clarification regarding his citizenship in 2019; however, even after five years, Gandhi had not filed any response in the matter.

Refuting his arguments, the Advocate appearing for the Election Commission of India submitted that the prayers raised in the PIL plea can only be sought in an election petition. He added that the issue related to Mr Gandhi's citizenship had already been raised before the Apex Court, and the said plea was dismissed.

When the bench asked Advocate Pandey from where he got the documents on which he was relying to assert that Gandhi was a British citizen, Advocate Pandey responded by saying that he had downloaded those documents from the "Internet". However, he could not specify the site from which he had sourced the documents annexed in the PIL plea. 

However, Petitioner Vignesh later specified the website from which he downloaded such documents. He submitted thus:

"Once you visit the official UK website and enter his (Gandhi's) DIN (Director Identification Number), you can see the details of those companies he is a part of. This DIN is inactive, but not surendered. This means he hasn't surrenderd the DIN."

However, the bench asked him to approach the concerned authorities, who have the power to determine someone's citizenship. The Court said that its hands were tied as it could not do much while hearing a PIL plea.

Further, when Advocate Pandey attempted to address the court again by saying that he should be allowed to speak and argue the matter, the Court rebuked him, emphasizing that he should maintain the court's decorum.

The Court also asked him first to answer its query regarding whether there is any judgment from the Supreme Court stating that the disqualification of an MP/MLA remains even after a conviction has been stayed.

Thereafter, when Advocate Pandey kept arguing, the Bench decided to rise.