Challenge to alleged loss of citizenship lies before the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act.

The petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto challenging Shri Rahul Gandhi’s right to hold the office of Member of the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli, alleging that he was not an Indian citizen but a British national.

The petitioners relied principally on the allegation that Shri Rahul Gandhi had incorporated a United Kingdom-based company, Backops Limited, and had allegedly described himself as a British national.

Similar challenges had previously been raised in 2015 and 2019.

In 2015, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appropriate remedy lay before the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

In 2019, the Court permitted the petitioner to join the pending representation before the Central Government or submit a fresh representation.

A representation was thereafter filed before the Central Government and remained pending.

Despite the pendency of that representation, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking adjudication of the citizenship issue by the High Court.

During hearing, the petitioner-in-person was unable to produce records of the alleged company incorporation, British Registrar of Companies records, or any declaration by Shri Rahul Gandhi of British citizenship.

The only document produced was an alleged University of Cambridge confirmation concerning a person named “Raul Vinci”.

The petitioner thereafter sought permission to withdraw the petition.

The Court applied Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, under which questions concerning the termination or loss of Indian citizenship by voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country are to be determined by the Central Government.

It relied on the principles recognised in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Mohammad, (1969) 1 SCC 771, and the Constitution Bench decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohammad, AIR 1963 SC 645, as considered by the coordinate Bench in the earlier 2015 proceedings.

The Court also followed the prior coordinate Bench orders directing the petitioners to pursue their grievance before the competent authority under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act.

A writ of quo warranto requires a legally sustainable challenge to the respondent’s entitlement to hold public office and cannot be founded merely on unsupported allegations.

The Court noted that the present petition substantially repeated the citizenship challenge raised in earlier proceedings and that the same issue was already pending consideration before the Central Government, the authority contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act.

Although the Court permitted the petitioner-in-person to argue the matter, he was unable to produce the alleged United Kingdom company records, Registrar of Companies material, or any document establishing a declaration of British citizenship by Shri Rahul Gandhi.

The University of Cambridge document relied upon by the petitioner did not establish either British citizenship or disqualification from holding Indian public office.

In these circumstances, the Court did not adjudicate the citizenship allegation on merits and, following the petitioner’s request, permitted withdrawal of the petition.

The Court did not issue a writ of quo warranto or make any final determination regarding Shri Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship or entitlement to hold membership of the Lok Sabha.

No order was made as to costs.