New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday set aside a magisterial court order that had dismissed a plea seeking criminal proceedings and an FIR against senior
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over allegations regarding her inclusion in the electoral roll before acquiring Indian citizenship.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne termed the earlier magistrate’s decision “non-speaking” and perverse, noting that it suffered from a manifest error of law. The sessions court observed that the lower court had passed its order without seeking a status report from the Delhi Police or following mandatory procedures under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The judge pointed out that the magistrate digressed into citizenship aspects rather than examining whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. The matter has now been remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate for an appropriate inquiry and a fresh hearing on 29 September.
Allegations of pre-citizenship voter entry
The revision petition was filed by Vikas Tripathi, who alleged that Sonia Gandhi’s name was fraudulently enrolled in the New Delhi voter list in 1980 three years before she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. Tripathi’s legal counsel argued before the court that obtaining voter enrollment without citizenship points to a false declaration and forged documents, necessitating a proper police investigation.
The complainant submitted that attested copies of the relevant 1980 electoral roll had been acquired directly from the Election Commission to substantiate the claim.
Defence arguments and legal challenge
Appearing for Sonia Gandhi, Senior Advocate R S Cheema rejected the allegations, arguing that the complaint was politically motivated, completely misconceived and an abuse of the judicial process. The defence contended that the petitioner failed to submit genuine foundational documents such as official citizenship papers or application records, relying instead on uncertified extracts and speculative media reports.
Defence counsel maintained that the lower court had correctly dismissed the matter as an uncalled-for fishing inquiry into events from nearly half a century ago. The case now awaits new proceedings before the magistrate court later this month.
