Fine-Tuning the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

For years, allegations surrounding Sri Rahul Gandhi's British citizenship have persisted, creating a continuous cloud of criticism and potentially hindering his public duties as Leader of Opposition and as a Member of Parliament.

The Court Case

Recently, some courts have begun to address this issue, following an FIR filed by an individual. The slow grind of our justice system, while providing a dramatic spectacle for the nation, raises questions about how a public figure of his stature should be treated.

(See details of the case in Appendix 1 below).

If these allegations lack proof, the matter should be definitively closed, rather than unfairly subjecting him to ongoing public scrutiny. Conversely, if sufficient proof exists, it represents a grave national security concern, as it would imply a foreign citizen illegally holding a prominent statutory post equivalent in rank to a Union Cabinet Minister.

In either scenario, the urgent intervention of the Supreme Court and other governmental institutions is necessary to swiftly resolve a case with such high national vulnerability.

Instead, the current situation involves a High Court taking up the case based on an individual's FIR. The justice system is set to move at a snail's pace, with a verdict expected only after months of investigations and court hearings. This will likely be followed by multiple appeals, split verdicts, and eventual recourse to the Supreme Court, all the while providing a steady stream of sensational details through news, television, and social media.

India's Modern Legal Framework

India has introduced a new legal framework, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), to modernize and simplify its legal system. This new code aims to improve judicial efficiency, protect individual rights, and ensure greater transparency and accountability in the justice system.

Nyay Devi, Image credit: Karan.jr.Singh

Departing from the traditional Western symbol of Lady Justice, the Supreme Court of India recently unveiled a new statue for use in India: the Nyay Devi. This modern representation challenges the adage "Justice is blind" by removing the blindfold. According to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, this change symbolizes that "the law is not blind, it sees everyone equally." In a further departure from the traditional symbol, the sword is replaced with a book, representing the constitution. The removal of the sword is meant to symbolize a shift in focus from punishment and retribution to the principles of Nyay, or justice.

Under this new frameworks, there is a need to introduce an expedited resolution for cases involving influential public figure, as their actions and words can have a profound impact on a large population. This is meant to prevent further harm to both the individual and the nation.

Conclusion

When the whole nation’s dignity is at stake, it is imperative that we refine our legal procedures suitably to dispose of such cases, involving individuals of influence, with utmost speed. Now, this type of refinement can be done under our new legal framework, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).  It is also important to note that there is a similar long-pending case against Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Sri Rahul Gandhi, known as the National Herald Case, which again has been languishing in our governmental and justice systems for decades.

(See details of the case in Appendix 2 below). 

Appendix 1: British Citizenship Case 

Here is a summary of the public details of the allegations and the ongoing legal and political developments surrounding them. 

Rahul Gandhi's British citizenship has been a subject of political and legal controversy in India. The main allegations stem from the claim that he declared himself a British citizen in the documents of a UK-based company he was associated with. 

Here are the key details of the allegations: 

• Origin of the Claims: The allegations were first brought to public attention by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in 2019. He claimed that in the annual returns filed by a UK-based company named Backops Limited, Rahul Gandhi had declared his nationality as British. 
• Company in Question: Backops Limited was a company registered in the United Kingdom in 2003 and dissolved in 2009. 
• Legal Proceedings: The allegations have been pursued in various courts, including the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court, through Public Interest Litigations (PILs). 

1. One such PIL was filed by a BJP worker, S. Vignesh Shishir, who has claimed to have evidence from the UK government and has been summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide details. 
2. The Allahabad High Court had previously dismissed a similar PIL but later reopened the case after the petitioner claimed to have new evidence.
3. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been directed by courts to provide a status report on the matter and has stated that the issue is "under consideration." 

• Rahul Gandhi's Stance: The Congress party has consistently dismissed the allegations, stating that Rahul Gandhi is an Indian citizen and was born and raised in India. Rahul Gandhi himself has called the allegations an "endeavor to malign" his name. 
• Indian Law: The controversy is significant because Indian law does not permit dual citizenship. If the allegations were proven, it could have legal consequences for his eligibility to hold public office. 

Appendix 2: The National Herald Case 

The National Herald case is a legal and political matter involving Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, as well as the Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YI) company they co-own. The case began with a private criminal complaint filed in 2012 by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy. 

Here is a summary of the key aspects of the case:

Core Allegations 

• Loan and Acquisition: The main allegation is that the Indian National Congress party gave an interest-free loan of ₹90.25 crore to a company called Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which published the National Herald newspaper. 
• Transfer of Assets: This debt was then allegedly acquired for just ₹50 lakh by Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YI), a company in which Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi hold a 38% stake each (totaling 76%). 
• Criminal Conspiracy: Swamy's complaint alleges that this transaction was a "fraudulent and criminal conspiracy" to acquire AJL's valuable real estate assets, which are estimated to be worth thousands of crores, for a nominal amount. 

Legal and Investigative Bodies Involved 

• Enforcement Directorate (ED): The ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It alleges that the Gandhis and others benefited from "proceeds of crime" and has provisionally attached properties worth over ₹750 crore. 
• Income Tax Department: The Income Tax Department has also probed the deal, noting that Young Indian is not a charitable company and that the Gandhis had benefited from the transaction. 
• Courts: The case is being heard in a Delhi court, with the ED recently filing a chargesheet against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. The courts have summoned the Gandhis and others to appear in person. 

Defense's Position 

• The Congress party and the Gandhis have consistently denied the allegations, calling the case a "political vendetta" by the BJP. 
• Their lawyers have argued that the loan was intended to revive the struggling National Herald newspaper and that since Young Indian is a not-for-profit company, the Gandhis could not have personally gained from the transaction.