In summary, the petition challenging Rahul Gandhi’s election from Wayanad was dismissed by both the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. The courts held that there was no merit in the allegation that Rahul Gandhi had falsely declared himself as a British citizen in his nomination papers.
In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Rahul Gandhi contested from two constituencies – Amethi in Uttar Pradesh and Wayanad in Kerala. He won both seats but later chose to retain Wayanad and vacate Amethi.
However, a petition was filed in the Kerala High Court challenging Rahul Gandhi’s election from Wayanad. The petitioner alleged that Rahul Gandhi had falsely declared in his nomination papers that he was a British citizen.
The petition was dismissed by the Kerala High Court on the grounds that it lacked merit. The court held that Rahul Gandhi had submitted a certificate of incorporation of a company registered in the United Kingdom which stated that he was a British national, but this certificate did not prove that he was a British citizen. The court also noted that Rahul Gandhi had made a statement on oath before a magistrate that he was an Indian citizen and had never held citizenship of any other country.
The court further observed that even if there was any discrepancy or false information in the nomination papers, it would not be sufficient to declare the election void as the defect must be of a substantial character and must have a direct bearing on the result of the election.
The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court’s order. However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition and upheld the Kerala High Court’s order dismissing the petition.
In summary, the petition challenging Rahul Gandhi’s election from Wayanad was dismissed by both the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. The courts held that there was no merit in the allegation that Rahul Gandhi had falsely declared himself as a British citizen in his nomination papers.
In Recent Judgment
The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed her Special Leave Petition for non-appearance of the counsel. Later, her counsel moved an application. Letter, her counsel moved an application seeking restoration of the petition stating that the default was due to technical difficulties in appearing through VC.
On Friday, the bench restored the petition and dismissed the same on merits. “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed”, the bench stated in the order.