Congress Leader Sonia Gandhi opposed the plea for an FIR alleging her name was added to the electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship, calling it “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law.”
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi described the plea seeking a first information report (FIR) against her for allegedly having her name added to the electoral roll three years prior to her acquisition of Indian citizenship as “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law.”
Gandhi’s response came after Vikas Tripathi filed the plea before the Rouse Avenue Court.
The case was heard today by Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne, who noted that Gandhi had submitted a reply. Consequently, the judge scheduled arguments for February 21.
Tripathi’s complaint had previously been dismissed on September 11, 2025, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACMM) Vaibhav Chaurasiya.
Following this, Tripathi filed a revision plea with the sessions court, which resulted in the revision court issuing a notice to Gandhi on December 9, 2025.
Tripathi asserts that Gandhi’s name was registered in the electoral roll for the New Delhi constituency in 1980, despite her becoming an Indian citizen only in April 1983. He also claims that her name was removed in 1982 and subsequently reinstated in 1983.
In her brief reply to the court, the veteran Congress leader argued that the complaint against her is based on speculative assumptions, media reports, and “imaginary applications” without any foundational evidence.
The reply stated,
“That the complainant has made serious allegations in a reckless manner based on his own imagination or opinion or unwarranted presumption,”
Gandhi contended that the complainant has not provided copies of any alleged voter registration applications, citizenship documents, or fraudulent records, nor has he attempted to lawfully acquire them.
She argued,
“In para 8 [of the complaint by Tripathi], the complainant claims that there was an outcry from the general public in 1982 resulting in her name being deleted from the electoral roll. It is intriguing how after 43 years of the so-called outcry of general public/media, the complainant records a fact in a criminal complaint supposedly on his direct knowledge,”
Gandhi emphasized that the allegations involve events from 1980 to 1983 and arise from controversies that emerged decades ago. She asserted that raising such claims after over 40 years creates challenges in producing credible evidence, amounting to malicious prosecution, which infringes on Article 21 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, she stated that matters of citizenship fall exclusively under the purview of the Central government, while electoral roll disputes are solely the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
In Gandhi’s affidavit, she pointed out that criminal courts cannot entertain private complaints on such issues masquerading as offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as doing so would breach the doctrine of separation of powers and Article 329 of the Constitution, which restricts judicial interference in the electoral process.
Article 329 of the Constitution of India bars courts from interfering in electoral matters by stating that no law on the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats can be challenged in any court, and that no election to Parliament or State Legislatures can be questioned except through an election petition filed before the authority specified by law, thereby ensuring that elections proceed without judicial interruption.