REPORT

Sonia Gandhi is a Citizen of India : Supreme Court

NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the Allahabad High Court by dismissing two election petitions challenging the election of the Congress president, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, to the Lok Sabha in October 1999, from the Amethi parliamentary constituency.

Freedom Fighters Call on Sonia Gandhi NEW DELHI : A delegation of freedom fighters of the Walled City on 6 September called on the Congress president, Smt. Sonia Gandhi, and drew her attention towards the problems being faced by the city. Mr. Gulzar Dehlvi, Mr. Mehboob Ali Zia, Master Sarup Singh, Shaukat Ali Hashmi, Rehmat Elahi, Salim Katoriwale, besides the local councillor, Mr. Ashok Jain were present.

Delivering the judgement, Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, on scrutiny of the pleadings in the case, said : "it must be held that the respondent (Mrs. Sonia Gandhi) by virtue of the certificate granted to her under Section 5(I)(c) of the Citizenship Act, which certificate has not been cancelled, withdrawn or annulled till date, is "citizen of India".

"The (election) petitions are filed nearly two decades after the grant of citizenship to the respondent" and "at no point of time did the petitioners even challenge the inclusion of her name in the electoral roll," the Bench added.

The Bench, which included the Chief Justice, Dr. A.S. Anand and Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju found "force in the submission of Mr. Milon Banerjee (senior counsel for Mrs. Gandhi) that since the election-petitioner himself has admitted that the respondent (Mrs. Gandhi) was "granted Indian citizenship" on April 30, 1983, and the respondent has in her affidavit filed in the High Court in support of her application - (seeking dismissal of the election petition at the preliminary stage) - submitted that she is a citizen of India and there was no illegality in her enrolment in the "electoral rolls" and acquiring citizenship of India and that the challenge to her citizenship of India was misconceived."

Both the election petitioners, Mr. Hari Shankar Jain and Mr Hari Krishna Lal (appellants), who admitted Mrs. Gandhi having acquired "Indian citizenship" by registration under Section 5(1)(c) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, on the ground of her having married to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, a citizen of India (late Prime Minister of India), however, disputed the validity of the "certificate of citizenship" issued to Mrs. Gandhi and submitted that she, being an "Italian citizen", did not satisfy the prerequisites for entitlement to registration as a "citizen of India" and even otherwise, "could not have become a citizen of India".

The Bench was, however, "of the opinion that a plea (in a given case) that a "returned candidate" is not a citizen of India and hence not qualified, or is disqualified for being a candidate in the election can be raised in an election petition before the High Court inspite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship by registration under Section 5(a)(c) of the the Citizenship Act.

"A plea as to constitutional validity of any law (like, for instance, Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act) can, in appropriate cases, also be raised and heard in an election petition (in a given instance) where it is necessary to decide the election dispute", the Bench observed.

Dismissing the two connected group of appeals from the appellants against the High Court’s judgement, the Bench noted that "the (election) petitions are hopelessly vague and completely bald in the allegations made, most of which could not possibly be within the "personal knowledge" of the petitioners but still verified as ‘true’ to their knowledge, without indicating the source."

The Bench held that "such pleadings cannot amount to disclosing ‘cause of action’ and are required to be rejected/dismissed," under relevant provision of Code of Civil Procedure.

Statement on Air Strikes AICC Chief Spokesperson, Mr. Jaipal Reddy issued the following statement on the latest developments in Afghanistan on 8 October, 2001 : The Congress Party notes with sadness that Afghanistan has once again been pushed into the trauma of war. Inevitably the loss of life and property will be enormous. We regret that the Taliban have not been responsive to the prevalent concern in the world against wanton terrorism and violence. At the same time we feel a deep sense of anguish for the innocent citizens of Afghanistan. We hope that this conflict will not be an unending tragedy for them. On 19th September the Congress Working Committee states : "The global alliance against terrorism is long overdue. India can never accept terrorism being used as an instrument of State policy. We join the voice of sanity being heard everywhere in the world. The battle against worldwide terrorism has to be relentless and sustained. This battle has to be simultaneously backed by a total effort for peace in the minds of the people everywhere. The Congress Working Committee expects that in combating the global terrorism, the world community will fully take into account India’s concerns and predicament in the face of sustained cross-border terrorism. "We do not subscribe to the thesis of a civilizational conflict between Islam and the West. Not only is that a gross misunderstanding of our world, it is also an invitation for much greater and never ending violence, conflict and discord. This is the essence of India’s pluralistic ethos and India’s own experience of sustainable secular democracy is a living proof of this." Regrettably, we are still to see a satisfactory global coalition against terrorism that addresses concerns and interests of India, which is the longest suffering target of cross-border terrorism. The people of India expect the Government of India to strive more vigorously, than it has so far done, towards that objective. The Congress party expects that Government of India will not allow India’s vital interests to be relegated to the background.