Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has sought responses from Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and the Delhi Police after a petition challenged an earlier decision not to order a police investigation into allegations relating to her inclusion in the 1980 electoral rolls. The petitioner alleges that Gandhi’s name was added to the voters’ list three years before she became an Indian citizen.
The notice was issued on Tuesday after Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne heard initial submissions from Senior Advocate Pavan Narang, who appeared for the petitioner, Vikas Tripathi. Judge Gogne said it was appropriate to obtain replies from both Gandhi and the police before deciding on the criminal revision plea.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on January 6, 2026.
Tripathi’s petition challenges the order delivered on September 11 by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya, who had declined to direct the police to register a First Information Report. According to Tripathi, Gandhi’s name appeared in the New Delhi constituency electoral roll in 1980, despite her acquiring Indian citizenship only in April 1983.
He also claims that her name was deleted from the roll in 1982 and then added again in 1983. These assertions, he says, point to the alleged use of forged documents.
In his earlier decision, Judge Chaurasiya said the plea could not be entertained because the court did not have the scope to conduct the kind of inquiry the petitioner was seeking. He noted that questions relating to a person’s citizenship fall solely within the purview of the central government. He further underlined that decisions on who may be included in or excluded from electoral rolls rest with the Election Commission of India.
The magistrate’s order stated that the allegations lacked the detail required to meet the legal threshold for offences such as forgery or cheating. He remarked that “mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by the essential particulars required to attract the statutory elements of cheating or forgery, cannot substitute a legally sustainable accusation”. He also pointed out that Tripathi was relying only on a photocopied extract of the purported 1980 electoral roll, which was not certified.
With the revision plea now admitted for consideration, the court will assess whether the lower court’s refusal to order a police inquiry was justified. The responses from Gandhi and the Delhi Police are expected to shape the next stage of the proceedings.
