The order does not direct an FIR against Sonia Gandhi. What the sessions court found was that the magistrate’s order refusing an FIR was unreasoned, a non-speaking order that had not properly dealt with the allegations, and it sent the matter back for a fresh, reasoned decision. The court was explicit that it could not itself order the FIR, since only the magistrate can do that. The underlying allegations, of a voter-roll entry before citizenship, remain untested.
New Delhi: A Delhi sessions court has set aside a magistrate’s order that had declined to direct registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi on a complaint alleging that her name was added to the electoral rolls in 1980, before she acquired Indian citizenship, and has remanded the matter for a fresh decision by a reasoned order [Vikas Tripathi v. State].
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Dwarka Courts held that the magistrate’s order was a complete non-speaking order lacking appropriate reasons, and directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide afresh after hearing the parties, conducting an inquiry and hearing the police officer concerned. The matter is to be listed before the ACJM on September 29.
The complaint
The revision petition was filed by one Vikas Tripathi, who had sought criminal action against Sonia Gandhi. According to his case, her name was included in the electoral rolls of the New Delhi constituency in 1980, whereas she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. He further alleged that her name was deleted from the rolls in 1982 and re-entered in 1983, and that forged documents had been used to secure the inclusion. On that basis, he sought registration of an FIR.
These are the allegations of the complainant. They have not been tested, and no offence has been established.
What the magistrate had held
By the order under challenge, dated September 11, 2025, the magistrate had declined to direct an FIR. That court had, among other things, said that it could not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India by entertaining a plea seeking an FIR, and had observed that bald assertions, unaccompanied by the essential particulars required to attract the statutory elements of cheating or forgery, could not substitute for a legally sustainable accusation. It noted that the complainant was relying only on a photocopy of an uncertified extract of the 1980 electoral roll.
The sessions court’s findings
Setting the order aside, the sessions court held that it suffered from a manifest error in law. It observed that any allegation of tampering with, or the fraudulent inclusion of, the name of a voter or a non-citizen in the electoral roll merits a reasoned order on whether the allegations of forgery or cheating have been made out. The magistrate’s order, it held, reflected a complete non-application of mind on the question whether any cognizable offence was disclosed, contained no discussion of the sequence in which the name was said to have been included, deleted and re-included across the 1980, 1982 and 1983 rolls, and had been passed without hearing the concerned police officer or calling for a status report.
The court also held that the magistrate’s reasoning on the powers of the Central Government in relation to citizenship, and of the Election Commission in relation to the electoral rolls, was improper and incorrect. Pronouncing the order, the judge observed that the law is ordained as the first love for any judicial order, and that an order must not flirt with the facts.
The court cannot itself order an FIR
Importantly, the sessions court clarified the limits of its own role. It held that it could not step into the shoes of the magistrate to consider the prayer for registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, that being an exercise only the magistrate can perform, and a revisional court cannot assume the character of the judicial magistrate. It therefore remanded the matter, directing the ACJM to pass a speaking order, after an inquiry, on whether the allegations in the complaint are disclosed.
ALSO READ: Sonia Gandhi Voter List Case: Delhi Court Reserves Order
Why it matters
The order is, in substance, about the quality of judicial reasoning rather than the merits of the allegations. A revisional court does not decide whether an FIR should be registered; it examines whether the order it reviews is legally sound. Here, the sessions court found that the magistrate had refused the FIR without a reasoned analysis of whether a cognizable offence was disclosed, and without following the procedure the law requires, hearing the police and calling a status report, and on that ground alone sent the matter back. The direction is for a fresh, reasoned decision, which may again refuse the FIR or may direct it; the outcome is left open.
It bears emphasis that nothing has been decided against Sonia Gandhi. No FIR has been ordered, no offence has been found, and the allegations, resting, on the magistrate’s own recorded view, on an uncertified photocopy of a decades-old electoral roll, remain wholly untested. Sonia Gandhi has, in the earlier proceedings, opposed the plea as frivolous and politically motivated. The presumption of innocence applies, and the matter now returns to the magistrate to be decided, by a speaking order, on September 29.
Case: Criminal revision petition filed by Vikas Tripathi, challenging the magistrate’s order of September 11, 2025 refusing an FIR against Sonia Gandhi
Court: Special Judge Vishal Gogne, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Appearing: Senior Advocate Ajay Burman for the petitioner
Status: Magisterial order set aside as non-speaking; matter remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision, listed before the ACJM on September 29. Allegations untested; no FIR ordered; presumption of innocence applies.