In a dramatic turn of events at the Allahabad High Court, a bench consisting of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om found itself at odds with Advocate Ashok Pandey over the issue of Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship.
The case, brought forth by Karnataka BJP activist S. Vignesh Shishir, challenges Gandhi’s eligibility to serve as an MP on the grounds that he holds British citizenship.
The bench had already listened extensively to both the petitioner’s advocate and the petitioner himself for about an hour and a half. However, the tension peaked when Advocate Pandey, dissatisfied with the time allotted, insisted on continuing his arguments.
“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), Pandey demanded.
The bench, clearly exasperated, reminded Pandey that extensive hearings are reserved for arguments that warrant such consideration. They emphasized that the arguments presented had already been heard and carefully considered.
“Please don’t take this Court for granted. We have been patient with you. But don’t take us for granted. PIL kardiya jabki citizenship ka issue 2 baar dismiss ho chuka hai,” the bench stated.
Despite the bench’s firm stance, Advocate Pandey persisted, leading the judges to an unprecedented move. Justice Rajan Roy, in a stern tone, declared, “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 exited the courtroom, Pandey remarked, “Ye antim adalat nahin hai” (HC is not the final court), underscoring his determination to pursue the matter further.
The petitioner’s plea had initially aimed to set aside Rahul Gandhi’s election, claiming his British citizenship made him ineligible to contest in Indian elections. However, after extensive deliberation, the petitioner himself sought to withdraw the PIL, only to face the bench’s stern warning about potential cost implications for wasting the court’s time.
