Sonia Gandhi Dismisses Court Petition as 'Politically Motivated' in Electoral Roll Dispute
Congress MP Sonia Gandhi has strongly criticized a criminal revision petition filed before a Delhi court, labeling it as "politically motivated and frivolous." The petition challenges a 2025 magisterial order that declined to direct the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) concerning allegations that her name was included in electoral rolls in 1980, three years prior to her acquisition of Indian citizenship.
Allegations and Legal Proceedings
The petition, presented before special judge Vishal Gogne at the Rouse Avenue sessions court, accuses Sonia Gandhi of having her name added to electoral rolls using forged documents. In response, the senior Congress leader described these claims as "wholly misconceived" and characterized the plea as an "abuse of the process of law." The revision plea was initiated by Vikas Tripathi, contesting magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya's refusal on September 11 last year to order the FIR.
Judge Gogne acknowledged Sonia Gandhi's reply on Saturday and scheduled the matter for arguments on February 21. Sonia Gandhi had been served notices regarding the plea on December 9, 2025.
Sonia Gandhi's Legal Defense
In her detailed reply, Sonia Gandhi argued that the trial court correctly determined that matters of citizenship fall "exclusively within the domain of the Central government," while disputes over electoral rolls are "vested solely with the Election Commission of India." She emphasized that criminal courts should not entertain private complaints disguised as offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as doing so would violate the doctrine of separation of powers and Article 329 of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial interference in the electoral process.
Furthermore, Sonia Gandhi contended that the petition recycles a "controversy raised in the media more than 25 years back," with allegations that are "speculative and unsupported" by authentic documents. She pointed out that the plea fails to specify the documents allegedly forged or their source, despite claiming that her name was "re-entered" in electoral rolls with a qualifying date of January 1, 1983, without presenting any supporting evidence on record.
"It is incomprehensible on what basis it has been claimed that the respondent got her name re-entered," her reply states, underscoring the lack of substantive proof in the allegations.
