Lucknow, April 19 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has deferred its order, which was given in an open court on Friday, for lodging an FIR against Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on a BJP worker's petition alleging that he is a British national. In the order, which was uploaded on the high court's website on Saturday evening, the court said it appears that the matter should not be decided without issuing a notice to the opposite party (Rahul Gandhi). The court will take up this issue at the next hearing on April 20. "It appears that the application under Section 528 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) should not be decided without issuing notice to the opposite party no.1. (Rahul Gandhi). The parties need to be given an opportunity to address the court on this aspect of the matter," Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said in the order. Justice Vidyarthi pointed out that a judgment was pronounced in the court on Friday in presence of SB Pandey, deputy solicitor general of India, and others. The judge further pointed out that during the hearing, the court had put a specific question to the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing in the matter as to whether a notice was required to be issued to the opposite party (Rahul Gandhi). All of them submitted that there was no need for it while deciding an application under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS, the court added. Therefore, a certain judgment was pronounced in the open court, said the court's order. Before the judgment could be typed and signed, the court came across a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannnath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. In that case, the Full Bench had held that an order of a magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation, is not an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is a temporary or provisional ruling made by a court during the course of a lawsuit, before the final judgment. They address procedural, administrative, or urgent matters to maintain the status quo or prevent harm, but do not resolve the main legal rights of the parties involved. The court asserted that the person who is suspected of having committed the crime, is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision. "In view of the aforesaid legal position, it appears that the application under Section 528 BNSS should not be decided without issuing notice to the opposite party no.1 (Rahul Gandhi). The parties need to be given an opportunity to address the court on this aspect of the matter," the high court said. Senior advocate SB Pandey, deputy solicitor general of India, who represents the Union government in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, said that the high court's directives will be followed. Justice Vidyarthi on Friday had issued a certain direction to the state government while hearing Karnataka-based Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker S Vignesh Shishir's petition seeking registration of the FIR against Rahul Gandhi due to alleged British citizenship. The petitioner had sought quashing of an order passed by the Special MP-MLA court in Lucknow on January 28, which had rejected a request to direct the authorities concerned to register an FIR against Gandhi. While rejecting Shishir's plea on January 28, the special MP-MLA Court (Lucknow) had stated that it did not have jurisdiction to decide on the citizenship issue. The petitioner sought registration of an FIR against Rahul Gandhi and a detailed investigation. The complaint was initially filed in the Special MP-MLA Court in Rae Bareli. Later, on the complainant's application, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court transferred the case from Rae Bareli to Lucknow on December 17, 2025. The Lucknow special court dismissed the plea on January 28. The petitioner subsequently challenged this order in the high court. During the hearing of the case, the high court reviewed documents presented by the petitioner related to the alleged British citizenship of Rahul Gandhi. The petitioner claimed that Rahul Gandhi had declared himself a British citizen in a company called 'Backops Limited' in the UK, raising questions about his Indian citizenship. The petitioner sought an FIR against Rahul Gandhi under several provisions, including Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, Sections 12 & 13 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Section 14(B) and 14(C) of Foreigners Act, 1946 at Kotwali police station, Rae Bareli district, Uttar Pradesh. Asif Rizwi, chairman, UP Congress Legal Cell, said: "I have heard that an order has been passed with regard to Rahul Gandhi. The same thing I heard last night, also. However, until we receive a notice from the Honourable High Court, Lucknow Bench, we won't be able to say anything."...