- (1.) Heard Sri Asok Pande in person. Sri Manish Mathur, learned counsel for the Election Commission and Sri S.B.Pandey, AS.G.I. learned counsel for the Union of India.
(2.) The petitioner contends that the first respondent Sri Rahul Gandhi is not entitled to represent any constituency or even contest an election much less be a representative of the people in the Parliament on the ground that he, according to the petitioner, has acquired foreign citizenship and therefore this acquisition clearly disqualifies himself to be a citizen of India. The allegations are sought to be supported on the strength of a letter written by Sri Subrmaniyam Swamy and other documents. The relief is for a writ of quo-warranto. Sri Asok Pande has argued that Article 9 of the Constitution of India clearly prohibits such a person who has acquired foreign citizenship and even otherwise in view of the facts on which this petition has been filed the citizenship of India as claimed by the respondent no. 1 does not subsist.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India has opposed the petition and contended that the arguments do not hold water keeping in view of the provisions of Citizenship Act, 1955 and the present petition should not be entertained. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, what we find is that the law relating to citizenship is governed by the provisions of Part II of the Indian Constitution and Article 9 clearly provides for the seizure of a citizenship or its relinquishment on account of any such disqualification. However, the same according to part two itself is subject to any law made by the Parliament.;