A Delhi court reserved its order on a revision petition over refusal to register an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. The case concerns allegations that her name was included in the electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship.
A Delhi court on Saturday reserved its order on a revision petition arising from the refusal to register an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, in a matter concerning the alleged inclusion of her name in the electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts reserved the order for pronouncement on August 13, and permitted counsel to file written submissions, if any, by August 1.
The revision has been brought by Vikas Tripathi, who alleges that Sonia Gandhi’s name was entered in the voter list at a point in time prior to her becoming a citizen of India. Tripathi had earlier moved an application seeking the registration of an FIR, which was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at the Rouse Avenue Court.
Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema, appearing with Tarannum Cheema for Sonia Gandhi, submitted that the documents relied upon by the revisionist were not genuine.
For the revisionist, Senior Advocate Ajay Burman, appearing with advocate Neeraj, contended that the other side had been unable to explain how her name came to be included in the electoral roll before she became an Indian citizen.
The reserved order follows a series of hearings over recent months in which the court repeatedly pressed the revisionist on the maintainability and reach of what he was seeking.
At the hearing on March 30, the court had put a pointed question to Sonia Gandhi’s counsel,
“How will you bypass the issue that Sonia Gandhi became a voter prior to she became citizen of India in 1983?”
Responding, Cheema had characterised the exercise as a fishing and roving inquiry, submitting that the Magistrate had rightly concluded the matter.
Burman, on the other side, had argued that a name could not have been entered in the electoral roll without the person first becoming an Indian citizen, and that he was seeking to demonstrate that this could only have been achieved through forged documents or fraud.
The court had questioned the very premise of ordering an investigation into events so far in the past, observing,
“You are here before the court asking for FIR. The matter is nearly half a century back. Who is going to be investigated? You are expanding the ambit.”
Pressing the point about what the material actually disclosed, the court had remarked,
“As on date the only information that you are disclosing is the circumstance of addition and deletion.”
Counsel for the complainant had responded that this was a case of a declaration made by a foreign citizen, submitting that a prima facie false declaration could be shown and that it warranted investigation, and adding,
“We are asking for an investigation into forged documents and forgery.”
The proceedings have moved through several stages. On April 18, after concluding his arguments in rebuttal, the revisionist sought permission to place on record a document said to be a report of the Election Commission dating to 1980, following which an application for filing additional documents was moved.
That application was formally filed on May 16, and on July 4, Sonia Gandhi filed her reply to it.
With the revision now heard, the court has reserved its decision on whether the refusal to register an FIR should stand, or whether the matter warrants investigation. The order is due on August 13.