Dinesh Kamath's Editorial 'Something fishy' that was published in Newsband

Something fishy

The Supreme Court on November 30, 2015 dismissed a public interest litigation petition seeking a CBI probe against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for allegedly declaring himself as a British national before company law authorities in the U.K.

The complainant should wait until after the elections and take up the issue legally and not through media speculation. If Gandhi is found guilty he should be punished as per the law. If not, the people responsible for this speculation should be penalized.

The judge did not go into merits of the case even for hearing but presumed its possible lack of importance in 2015 when the accused was merely one of the 500 MPs, but today he is a PM candidate, and President of a party, and the judge is retired and safe. Instead of calling it frivolous and stopping with it, it would have been nicer if the judge advised the petitioner how he should go about in resolving the issue.

It is necessary for Gandhi, as he is a PM candidate, to declare his citizenship by himself. In India, two citizenship is not acceptable and if it is like this he must submit the relevant document during Nomination. This family is ruling India since 70 Years and they know very well the people of India is looking for short time personal benefits.

Why are some perturbed in law taking its own course? If Gandhi is innocent why so anxious to bail him out? From when on PIL became an irksome tool? What is the relationship between Supreme Court comment and Swamy's complaint? It does raise reasonable doubt based on the presented evidence. India doesn't allow dual citizenship; you should not have another country passport; that means you are relinquishing India citizenship. Something is fishy here.

If this doesn't fit a PIL being about an individual, even though he is heading one of the political parties and likely to cause profound damage to public if he were ever to get to a coveted position being a foreigner, it doesn't mean the issue itself doesn't merit investigation. While the accused can easily defend himself saying it was a typo, the Government should rather check with Registry of Citizens in UK to get the status verified. The accused out on bail often travels abroad and has foreign maternal lineage. It is notable he enjoys the expensive SPG protection while in India and is brave enough to refuse it while on foreign travel which pegs the question if he finds foreign lands more safe than India or he is rich enough to afford private security overseas? Therefore, finding out the truth about the accused would help unravel many issues that are stacked on his citizenry and investments. Though late, the issue has come up due to EC referring the matter to MHA based on complaint by a rival candidate.

There is absolutely no harm in Dr Subramaniam Swamy's questioning Rahul's dual citizenship now. Criminal offences can be questioned at any time and case can be filed in courts.