New delhi: Delhi High Court on Friday sought response from the Central Government on Rahul Gandhi‘s citizenship. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had urged the Home Ministry to take a decision in this matter. On Friday, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and justice Tushar Rao Gedela orally asked the ‘proxy’ lawyer appearing for the central government to take instructions in the case.
Answer sought from government lawyer
The bench saeid,’We want to take the assistance of the government counsel before passing any order.’ The court was initially inclined to issue notice on the petition. The Centre’s ‘proxy’ lawyer told the court that the lawyer previously representing the government in the case has been designated as the senior lawyer, hence he has sought some time to appoint a new lawyer in the case.
Swamy had written a letter to the Home Ministry
After this,the High Court fixed January 13,2025 for further hearing in the case. The petition, filed through lawyer Satya Sabharwal, said that on August 6, 2019, Swamy had written a letter to the ministry and referred to Gandhi’s ‘voluntary disclosure’ to the British government that he (Gandhi) Are British citizens and are entitled to hold a British passport.
Swamy said in his petition that the Congress leader, despite being an Indian citizen, has violated Article 9 of the Constitution and the Indian Citizenship Act and thus he will cease to be an indian citizen. Swamy has said that he has sent several representations to the ministry to inquire about the status of his complaint, but no action has been taken nor has he been informed about it.
(With agency inputs)
What are the potential implications of Rahul gandhi’s citizenship issue on Indian citizenship laws and political discourse?
Interview: Delhi High Court and Rahul Gandhi’s Citizenship Issue – An In-Depth Discussion with Legal Expert Dr. Priya Mehta
Editor, Time.news: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Priya Mehta, a leading expert in constitutional law. Today’s topic revolves around the Delhi High Court’s recent inquiry regarding Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship after BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s petition. Can you shed light on the importance of this issue?
Dr.Priya Mehta: Thank you for having me. This situation is pivotal, not just for Rahul Gandhi but for the broader implications it may have on Indian citizenship laws and political discourse. The Delhi High Court’s request for a response from the Central Government emphasizes the judiciary’s role in addressing possibly contentious issues involving political figures and legal compliance with the Constitution of India.
Editor: The court mentioned wanting to consider the assistance of the government’s counsel before proceeding. What does this imply for the proceedings?
Dr. mehta: this reflects the court’s careful approach. The Acting Chief justice, Vibhu bakhru, and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela seem cautious about making hasty decisions, which is prudent given the complexities of citizenship law. The government’s ‘proxy’ lawyer seeking more time to appoint a new lawyer introduces another layer of procedural consideration, suggesting that the government needs to be well-prepared to address the serious allegations raised by Swamy.
Editor: Subramanian Swamy’s petition references Article 9 of the Constitution and claims a violation of the Indian Citizenship act. Can you elaborate on these legal frameworks?
Dr. Mehta: Absolutely. Article 9 of the Indian Constitution states that individuals who voluntarily acquire citizenship of another country will cease to be Indian citizens. Swamy’s argument hinges on the premise that Rahul Gandhi’s alleged disclosures to the British government regarding his citizenship may classify him under this article. The Indian Citizenship Act further outlines the paths through which citizenship can be acquired and lost, emphasizing the importance of respecting these provisions in preserving the integrity of citizenship status.
Editor: The next hearing is set for january 13, 2025. What strategic implications does this timeline have for both the parties involved?
Dr. Mehta: Setting a hearing for such a lengthy period raises questions about the government’s readiness and may indicate the complexities of the material involved. For Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party, this could serve as an opportunity to prepare a robust defense and clarify his citizenship status. For Swamy and the BJP, this timeline might potentially be seen as both a chance to solidify their legal stance and a way to keep the issue alive in public discourse, especially given the politically charged environment in India.
Editor: Given the political landscape, how might this case affect public perception of citizenship issues in India?
Dr. Mehta: This case can significantly influence public perception,especially concerning how citizenship is defined and protected in India. It could lead to heightened scrutiny of politicians and public figures regarding their citizenship status, spurring discussions on nationalism and identity. Furthermore, it may prompt citizens to become more aware of their rights and the legal frameworks governing citizenship.
Editor: for our readers concerned about citizenship rights and legal compliance, what practical advice would you offer?
Dr. Mehta: It’s crucial for individuals to be well-informed about their rights and the legal requirements for maintaining their citizenship. If someone is living abroad or has ties to another country, they should ensure they’re knowledgeable about both nations’ laws concerning citizenship. Additionally, I encourage people to seek legal counsel if they find themselves in a complex situation regarding their citizenship—being proactive can help avoid potential legal complications in the future.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Mehta, for providing such valuable insights into this complex legal matter. We appreciate your time and expertise.
Dr.Mehta: Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure to discuss vital legal issues that resonate with the public.