Rouse Avenue Courts has adjourned to February 7 a revision plea by Advocate Vikas Tripathi challenging the magistrate’s refusal to order an FIR against Sonia Gandhi. The case concerns allegations her name entered electoral rolls before she gained citizenship.
NEW DELHI: The Rouse Avenue Courts has adjourned a revision petition filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenging a magistrate court’s order that denied a request to register an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi until February 7.
This petition stems from allegations that her name was improperly added to the electoral rolls for 1980-81, nearly three years prior to her obtaining Indian citizenship.
Tripathi claims this inclusion constituted an illegality that necessitates a criminal investigation.
Earlier, a magistrate court had rejected Tripathi’s appeal for police directives to register an FIR against the former Congress president. In response to that decision, Tripathi approached the sessions court, asserting that the magistrate did not adequately recognize the gravity of the claims and the necessity for a police inquiry.
The petition argues that Sonia Gandhi’s alleged registration in the electoral rolls before acquiring Indian citizenship raises concerns regarding wrongful enrollment and breaches of electoral laws.
Tripathi contends that these issues cannot simply be dismissed and require investigation through an FIR. The court has yet to hear detailed arguments regarding the merits of the revision petition, which will be revisited on February 7.
In December 2025, a sessions court had issued a notice to Sonia Gandhi in relation to the revision petition. Prior to that, on September 11, 2025, a Delhi Court had dismissed a criminal complaint seeking the registration of an FIR against her for the alleged inclusion of her name in the 1980 electoral roll before she obtained Indian citizenship.
The complaint cited provisions from the Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging offenses such as cheating, forgery, and false declaration. The informant relied on a photocopy of an electoral roll extract and news reports to assert that Gandhi was registered as a voter in New Delhi in 1980, despite receiving Indian citizenship only in 1983 under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Rejecting the plea, ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia stated that the allegations lacked the essential components to constitute cheating or forgery, relying instead on “mere bald assertions” without sustainable legal evidence.
The court determined that the complaint appeared to misuse criminal law to transform a routine dispute into a criminal issue in order to invoke its jurisdiction.
The court remarked that,
“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,”
Importantly, the court emphasized its lack of authority to address questions relating to citizenship or voter eligibility.
The order stated,
“This Court is not empowered to adjudicate upon questions which, by express constitutional and statutory mandate, fall within the exclusive domain of the Central Government in matters relating to citizenship in view of Article 11 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and the Citizenship Act, 1955,”
The court further highlighted that the responsibility for determining inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls lies exclusively with the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951.
Any judicial interference, it noted, would represent an “unwarranted transgression” into the constitutional responsibilities of competent authorities and a violation of Article 329 of the Constitution.
Questioning the documentation submitted to the Election Commission when her name was first added in 1980, Narang argued that,
“The reason for the deletion is nowhere to be found. There can be two reasons: either someone takes the citizenship of another country or files a Form 8 (application for correction in particulars). But the prerequisite is that the person has to be a citizen,”
The criminal complaint filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi sought a comprehensive investigation into the alleged irregularity, which could have potential legal effects under the Representation of the People Act if verified.
Tripathi approached the court under relevant criminal provisions, requesting that authorities conduct an inquiry into this matter.