A Delhi court has reopened a legal dispute surrounding Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s alleged inclusion in the electoral rolls before she acquired Indian citizenship. Special Judge Vishal Gogne has set aside the magistrate’s earlier decision refusing to order a probe, holding that the order did not adequately address the allegations and suffered from legal and procedural shortcomings. The case now returns to the magistrate for a fresh hearing and a reasoned order.
A Delhi court has set aside a magistrate’s earlier order that had declined to direct an investigation into allegations concerning Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s inclusion in an electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court, while reading out the operative portion of his order, said the magistrate’s decision was not consistent with the allegations raised by the complainant, particularly those relating to alleged forgery. The court has remanded the matter to the magistrate for a fresh consideration and directed that arguments be heard again.
The dispute relates to an allegation that Gandhi’s name appeared in the electoral roll of the New Delhi constituency in 1980, whereas she acquired Indian citizenship in April 1983. The complaint, filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, alleged that documents may have been forged or falsified to facilitate the electoral-roll entry. These remain allegations and have not been established by a court.
The magistrate had rejected the complaint in September 2025. At that stage, the court held that the allegations did not contain sufficient particulars to establish the ingredients of offences such as cheating or forgery. It also questioned the evidentiary basis of the complaint, including reliance on an uncertified copy of an old electoral-roll extract. I
The subsequent revision petition challenged that decision before Special Judge Gogne. Sonia Gandhi opposed the revision plea, with her side arguing that the allegations were based on incorrect or speculative material and that no specific forged document had been identified. Her counsel also argued that matters concerning citizenship and electoral-roll eligibility fall within the jurisdiction of the appropriate statutory authorities.
The latest court order does not establish that the allegations against Gandhi are true, nor does it order an FIR against her. Instead, the court has found shortcomings in the manner in which the magistrate dealt with the complaint and has sent the matter back for reconsideration.
Judge Gogne reportedly described the earlier order as “non-speaking” in relation to the facts of the case and said it suffered from a manifest error of law. He further observed that the magistrate had not provided the Delhi Police investigating officer sufficient time to respond to the allegations and submit a status report.
The court also termed the earlier decision “perverse and improper”, paving the way for a fresh examination of the complaint at the magistrate level.
The development therefore marks another stage in a case that began with questions over an electoral-roll entry dating back more than four decades. The next proceedings before the magistrate will determine how the allegations, the available documents and the police response are dealt with.
For now, the legal issue remains at the stage of judicial reconsideration. The court’s decision to remand the matter means that the allegations will receive a fresh hearing; it does not amount to a finding of criminal liability against Sonia Gandhi.
Leave Your Comment