Allahabad High Court Withholds FIR Order Against Rahul Gandhi in British Passport Case
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has withheld its order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi in a case alleging that he holds British nationality.
The matter was heard by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, who had earlier, on April 17, found a prima facie case against Gandhi and dictated an order in open court granting liberty to the State to refer the matter to the Central government for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, before the judgment could be formalized, the Court reconsidered its stance.
Court Reconsiders After Full Bench Judgment
The Court withheld its earlier dictated order after coming across a Full Bench decision in Jagannnath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2014 SCC OnLine Alld 11859). Relying on this precedent, the Court observed:
“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: 2014 SCC OnLine Alld 11859, wherein 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.
Further added,
Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397. 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,”
This observation led the Court to conclude that Gandhi, as a prospective accused, may be entitled to a hearing before any direction for investigation is issued.
Issue of Notice to Proposed Accused
During the proceedings, the Court specifically questioned whether notice should be issued to Gandhi. The order records:
“All of them submitted that there is no requirement of issuance of a notice to the proposed accused while deciding an application under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS and, therefore, no notice needs to be issued to the proposed accused-opposite party no.1 while deciding an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the validity of an order rejecting an application under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS,”
Despite these submissions, the Court emphasized the need to hear all parties on this legal aspect. Consequently, the matter has been listed for further hearing on April 20. Notably, no formal notice has yet been issued to Gandhi.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Karnataka-based complainant S. Vignesh Shishir, who sought registration of an FIR against Gandhi under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Official Secrets Act, the Passport Act, and the Foreigners Act.
Shishir alleged that Gandhi was a director of a UK-based company, Backops Ltd., and had declared his nationality as British in official filings. It was further claimed that Gandhi listed his nationality as British in company annual returns filed in 2005 and 2006. The company was dissolved in 2009.
The complainant also contended that Gandhi disclosed ownership of the company and a foreign bank account during the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. After police allegedly failed to act on his complaint, Shishir approached a trial court, which rejected his plea. He subsequently moved the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC).
Table of Contents
Legal Representation and Prior Developments
The State and Union governments were represented by government advocates and the Deputy Solicitor General of India. Advocate Vindeshwari Pandey appeared for the petitioner.
Earlier, in August 2025, the High Court had directed the Union government to provide round-the-clock security to Shishir through Central Armed Police Forces.
Conclusion
The case raises important questions about procedural fairness and the rights of a prospective accused in criminal proceedings. The upcoming hearing on April 20 is expected to determine whether Gandhi must be heard before any direction for FIR registration or investigation is issued.
READ ORDER:
LATEST POSTS:
