A Delhi court on Tuesday sought responses from senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and the police on a plea challenging a magistrate’s order refusing a probe on the allegation that she was included in the electoral rolls three years before acquiring Indian citizenship in 1983.
IMAGE: Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi speaks at the launch of the Nehru Centre India, in New Delhi, December 5, 2025. Photograph: @INCIndia X/ANI Photo
Special Judge Vishal Gogne was hearing a revision plea against the magisterial court’s order of September 11, which had dismissed the plea, saying the complaint was “fashioned with the object of clothing the court with jurisdiction through allegations which are legally untenable, deficient in substance, and beyond the scope of this forum’s authority”.
Issuing notice to Gandhi and the Delhi police, Judge Gogne posted the matter on January 6 for further proceedings.
The revision plea was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, vice president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association of the Rouse Avenue courts.
Tripathi’s counsel, senior advocate Pavan Narang, had alleged before the magisterial court that in January 1980, Gandhi’s name was added as a voter of the New Delhi constituency when she was not an Indian citizen.
He had claimed “some forgery” and a public authority being “cheated”.
The magistrate, however, had dismissed the plea seeking a probe by holding that the complainant sought to set the criminal law in motion by persuading the court to assume jurisdiction, which did not vest in it legally.
He had observed “mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by the essential particulars required to attract the statutory elements of cheating or forgery” cannot substitute a legally sustainable accusation.
The plea, the magistrate had said, was merely relying upon an extract of the electoral roll, which was “a photocopy of a photocopy of an alleged extract of an uncertified electoral roll” of 1980.
Deprecating the complaint, the magistrate had said, “Such a course, in substance, amounts to a misuse of the process of law by projecting a civil or ordinary dispute in the garb of criminality, solely to create a jurisdiction where none exists.
