Rahul Gandhi ‘dual citizenship’ case: Stating that the petitioner was casting aspersions against the court via social media posts, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench Monday recused himself from hearing a petition seeking an FIR against Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, for allegedly having dual citizenship of India and the United Kingdom.
Citing reasons behind his recusal, the primary one being social media posts by the petitioner, S Vignesh Shishir, Justice Vidyarthi stated in a detailed order, “The… messages posted by the petitioner on social media indicate that he is casting aspersions against this court because the court had not signed and uploaded the order that was dictated in open Court on 17.04.2026, for the reason recorded in the order dated 17.04.2026 signed and uploaded on the website of this Court. The messages indicate that the petitioner has lost faith in this Court.”
The judge further said, “The… three messages posted by the petitioner on social media indicate that he has cast aspersions on this Court, but thereafter he has sought a public opinion as to whether he should proceed with the matter before this Court.”
“In these circumstances… this court does not deem it appropriate to hear this matter any further,” the order read.
The court stated, “Instead of admitting the mistake in placing the correct position before the Court, the petitioner has blamed the court for not uploading the order that was dictated in open court and has created an unpleasant situation, leading this court to recuse from hearing of the case.”
“I am pained to note that the learned counsel appearing in this case have failed to perform their duty of providing assistance to the Court in a fair manner as per the level expected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Bahadur Gautam (supra),” the order stated.
Although it is the duty of the court to render justice by passing appropriate orders, the bench is entitled to receive assistance from the counsel in discharge of duty, it added. Lack of proper assistance creates hurdle in expeditious dispensation of justice, the judge said.
Story continues below this ad
“In the present case, although correct legal position was not placed before the court and the court had pronounced an order but the court itself found out the relevant law laid down by a Full Bench of this court in the case of Jagannath Verma (supra) and deemed it appropriate to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties on this point, thereby preventing an erroneous order to be passed,” the order stated.
What the petitioner said
During a hearing on April 17, the bench of Justice Vidyarthi had posed a question to the petitioner and the counsel appearing in the matter if a notice was required to be issued to the opposite party no 1 (Rahul Gandhi).
The order mentioned that all the counsel, including those representing the state, the Central government submitted that there is no requirement of issuance of a notice to the “proposed accused” when deciding an application under “Section 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS”.
The April 17 order stated, “The Court had dictated a judgment in the open court. However, before the judgment could be typed and signed, the Court came across a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannnath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The Full Bench has held that an order of a Magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation, is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397.”
Story continues below this ad
“In proceedings in revision under Section 397, the prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is suspected of having committed the crime, is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it appears that the application under Section 528 BNSS should not be decided without issuing notice to the opposite party no.1. The parties need to be given an opportunity to address the Court on this aspect of the matter,” the bench stated while listing the case for April 20.
The bench in its order mentioned following social media posts by petitioner S Vignesh Shishir as:
-“Just Now Came to know that late night calls and exercises have been done by Congress Party and Their Foreign Deep State Counterparts to various High Ranking Persons. There is a Massive Twist of Things happening in Backroom. Please beware R&AW and Intelligence Bureau are watching everyone 24×7. This is Real War and Not some Mock Drill Going on.
-“After the Orders of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench Order Were Passed at 4 30 pm onwards on 17th April 2026.”
Story continues below this ad
-The posts, as mentioned in the court order, also read, “My Name is Vignesh Shishir, I am 3rd Generation Swayamsevak of RSS and 3rd Generation Karyakarta of Bhartiya Janta Party. My Family have seen all your tactics from Pre Independence till 18th April ߪ 11:00 HRS. If there is some twist I will approach Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Directly and submit my letter about any foul play and Deep State Conspiracy.”
In yet another message, the petitioner, according to the court, wrote, “In this extraordinary circumstances which has occured in last 24 hours. I would like to Request All The People of India to kindly urge the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to kindly Direct the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench to kindly type and upload the Judgement which is dictated and pronounced in Open Court as matter pertains to National Security of India and Concerning Larger Public Interest of Every Indian Citizen about a Foreign National sitting in Lok Sabha Since Last 22 years.”
Then Justice Vidyarthi added in his order, “The Courts do not get influenced by the appreciation of litigants. However, the messages quoted above posted after passing of the order dated 17.04.2026 amount to casting aspersions on this Court and keeping those in consideration, I find it appropriate to recuse from hearing this case. Accordingly, I recuse myself from hearing this matter.”
“Let the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for nomination of another bench,” he added.
