HC judge recuses from Rahul Gandhi case, says petitioner had ‘cast aspersions’ on court in social media

JUstice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad heights margaret court on mon recused himself from audience the caseful of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s alleged dual citizenship in view of the comments made by the petitioner S. Vignesh Shishir, a Karnataka BJP worker, on social media and directed to send the file to the chief justice for nominating a new bench for hearing.In Monday’s order, the judge said the petitioner cast aspersions on the court with the social media posts.Government advocate VK Singh, who appeared on behalf of the UP government during Monday’s hearing, said that in view of the comments made by the petitioner on social media, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in open court, recused himself from hearing Rahul Gandhi’s alleged dual citizenship case and directed that the file be sentto the chief justice for nominating a new bench.Last Friday, Justice Vidyarthi had deferred the open court order to register an FIR against Rahul Gandhi in the alleged dual citizenship case.In its Monday’s order, the court said, “The petitioner has posted the following message on social media: Massive back room exercise by Congress party and late night calls to all from deep state elements.”The high court order also said, “The aforesaid messages posted by the petitioner on social media indicate that he is casting aspersions against this court because the court had not signed and uploaded the order that was dictated in open court on 17.04.2026, for the reason recorded in the order dated 17.04.2026 signed and uploaded on the website of this court. The messages indicate that the petitioner has lost faith in this court.”“Strangely, in yet another message posted on the social media the petitioner has sought public opinion whether he should request this Court to issue notice to the opposite party and order his personal appearance before the Court and he has stated he fully believes in this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” the high court further said in its Monday’s order.“In these circumstances, when the petitioner has publicly cast aspersions on the Court on social media, this court does not deem it appropriate to hear this matter any further,” said the court.“The Courts do not get influenced by the appreciation of litigants. However, the messages quoted above posted after passing of the order dated 17.04.2026 amount to casting aspersions on this Court and keeping those in consideration, I find it appropriate to recuse from hearing this case,” said the order.“Accordingly, I recuse myself from hearing this matter,” Justice Vidyarthi said in the order.The court also pointed out that advocates, including deputy solicitor general of India, representing various parties did not assist the court.In Friday’s order, available on the high court’s website on Saturday, the court stated that during Friday’s hearing, the petitioner, along with the lawyers for the central and state governments, were asked whether a notice to opponent number one (Rahul Gandhi) was necessary in this case.The order stated that the lawyers told the court that there was no need to issue a notice, after which a detailed order for registration of FIR was passed in open court.However, before the order was typed and signed, Justice Vidyarthi had observed that the full bench of the Allahabad high court, in a decision, passed in 2014, had held that only a revision petition is maintainable in case of rejection of the petitions seeking registration of FIR and it is mandatory to send a notice to the proposed accused on such petition.The court had stated that, given this legal position, it was not appropriate to decide the matter without issuing notice to opponent number one (Rahul Gandhi). The court had fixed April 20 for the next hearing.The petitioner, S Vignesh Shishir, has levelled several serious allegations against Rahul Gandhi under the Indian Penal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Foreigners Act, and the Passport Act, and demanded a thorough investigation. A lower court had previously rejected the petitioner’s application. He approached the high court thereafter.