Himalaya Harbinger, Uttarakhand Bureau
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Friday directed the state government to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP from Rae Bareli, in connection with a petition regarding his citizenship.
The court of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the final order after taking up Karnataka-based Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker S Vignesh Shishir’s petition seeking registration of the FIR against Rahul Gandhi due to alleged British citizenship.
Senior advocate SB Pandey, the assistant solicitor general of India who represented the Union government in court, said: “The high court has directed to lodge an FIR against Gandhi in the citizenship case.”
As the matter concerns the citizenship of a foreign country, central agencies may also probe the case, Pandey added.
The high court is yet to upload the order on its website.
The petitioner had sought quashing of an order passed by the Special MP-MLA court in Lucknow on January 28, which had rejected a request to direct the authorities concerned to register an FIR against Gandhi.
Those present in court on Friday included S Vignesh Shishir, state government advocate VK Singh, assistant solicitor general of India SB Pandey, and advocate Anand Dwivedi, representing the Union government.
While rejecting Shishir’s plea on January 28, the special MP-MLA Court (Lucknow) had stated that it did not have jurisdiction to decide on the citizenship issue. Seeking registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi and a detailed investigation, the petitioner levelled charges against the Congress leader under the Indian Penal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act.
The complaint was initially filed in the Special MP-MLA Court in Rae Bareli. Later, on the complainant’s application, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court transferred the case from Rae Bareli to Lucknow on December 17, 2025.
The Lucknow special court dismissed the plea on January 28. The petitioner subsequently challenged this order in the high court.
