Electoral Roll: Delhi Court Adjourns Plea Challenging Refusal to Order FIR Against Sonia Gandhi

The petition arises from allegations that Sonia Gandhi’s name was wrongly included in the electoral rolls for 1980–81, nearly three years before she acquired Indian citizenship. Tripathi has alleged that such inclusion amounted to an illegality warranting criminal investigation.

The revision petition was listed before the Rouse Avenue Courts, which deferred further hearing on the matter and fixed February 7 as the next date.

Earlier, a magistrate court had declined Tripathi’s request seeking directions to the police for registration of an FIR against the former Congress president. Challenging that order, Tripathi approached the sessions court, contending that the magistrate failed to appreciate the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a police probe.

According to the plea, the alleged inclusion of Sonia Gandhi’s name in the electoral rolls prior to her obtaining Indian citizenship raises questions of wrongful enrolment and violation of electoral laws. The petitioner has argued that these issues cannot be brushed aside without investigation and require examination through registration of an FIR. The court is yet to hear detailed submissions on the merits of the revision petition. The matter will now be taken up for further consideration on February 7.

In December 2025, a Session court had issued notice to Congress leader and MP Sonia Gandhi in the revision petition. Previously on September 11, 2025 a Delhi Court had dismissed a criminal complaint seeking registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over the alleged inclusion of her name in the 1980 electoral roll before she acquired Indian citizenship.

The complaint invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging cheating, forgery, and false declaration. The informant relied on a photocopy of an electoral roll extract and news reports to claim that Gandhi was registered as a voter in New Delhi in 1980, despite being granted Indian citizenship only in 1983 under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Rejecting the plea, ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia had observed that the allegations lacked the fundamental ingredients to constitute the offences of cheating or forgery and were based on “mere bald assertions” without legally sustainable evidence. The Court held that the complaint was an attempt to misuse criminal law by projecting an ordinary dispute as a criminal matter to invoke its jurisdiction. "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," it said.

Most significantly, the Court had underscored that it had no authority to adjudicate issues relating to citizenship or voter eligibility. “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 order had stated.

The Court further had emphasized that the determination of inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls lies solely with the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951. Any interference by the Court, it said, would amount to “unwarranted transgression” into the constitutional functions of the competent authorities and a violation of Article 329 of the Constitution.

The criminal complaint filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi sought a thorough investigation into the purported irregularity, which, if proven, could have legal ramifications under the Representation of the People Act. Tripathi approached the Court under relevant criminal provisions, requesting that authorities initiate an inquiry into the matter. “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,” Narang had said. He had questioned what documents were submitted to the Election Commission when her name was first included in 1980.

Hearing Date: January 6, 2026