Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Sept 21: A Delhi sessions court on Monday allowed a revision plea challenging a magistrate’s September, 2025 order refusing registration of an FIR or order a fresh probe into the allegations that the name of the former Congress president Sonia Gandhi was included in the electoral rolls three years before she actually became an Indian citizen in 1983.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne quashed the Magisterial Court’s order as “non-speaking.” The order had dismissed a complaint filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi, vice-president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association of the Rouse Avenue courts.
“The impugned order suffers from a manifest error in law on account of non-compliance with Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), inter alia, not hearing the submissions of the police officer concerned and non-calling of a status report from the police station concerned,” the Judge said.
He said the “non-speaking” nature of the order was evident as the Magistrate did not consider the twin options under law; directing registration of FIR or alternatively, conducting proceedings under BNSS. The Judge said the Magistrate, instead of considering the core aspect of whether the complaint disclosed commission of a cognisable offence, digressed towards the issue of citizenship.
Ordering that the plea would be heard and decided afresh, the court said the magistrate must pass a reasoned order after hearing the complainant, Vikas Tripathi, and the Delhi Police. In a detailed order pronounced in court, Judge Gogne ruled that the trial court order was perverse and improper.
The sessions court said the magistrate’s order “suffers from manifest error in law on account of non-compliance with BNSS provisions, inter alia, not calling for a status report of the hearing submission from the police,” the sessions court said. It also observed that the sanctity of the electoral roll is an article of faith for every citizen in a parliamentary democracy and that even the “mightiest” in the land are voters like ordinary citizens. Tampering or fraudulent and inclusion of the name of a non-citizen or false declarations merits a reasoned order, the court said.
The plea seeking an FIR against Sonia Gandhi was filed by one Vikas Tripathi. His complaint was initially dismissed on September 11, 2025, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACMM) Vaibhav Chaurasiya. However, Tripathi then filed a revision plea before the sessions court against the order of the ACMM. On December 9, 2025, the revision court had issued notice to Sonia Gandhi and on Monday it set aside the ACMM’s order and directed a fresh consideration of Tripathi’s complaint.
According to the complainant, Ms Gandhi’s name was included in the electoral roll of the New Delhi constituency in 1980, even though she became a citizen of India only in April 1983. He further claimed that Gandhi’s name was included in the electoral roll in 1980, deleted in 1982, and then included again in 1983.
Gandhi had refuted the allegations, arguing that the case was “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law.” In a short reply filed before the Court, the veteran Congress leader argued that the complaint against her relied on speculative assumptions, media reports, and “imaginary applications” without producing any foundational documents as proof.
“That the complainant has made serious allegations in a reckless manner based on his own imagination or opinion or unwarranted presumption,” the reply stated. It was further contended that neither did the complainant place on record copies of alleged applications for voter registration, citizenship-related documents or forged records, nor did he show any attempt to lawfully obtain them.
The matter has been posted for further proceedings on September 29.