Court orders fresh hearing in Sonia Gandhi voter list case
Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has accepted a revision petition related to Sonia Gandhi's name in the voter list.
The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has accepted a revision petition related to Sonia Gandhi's inclusion in the voter list. The court has directed the magistrate to hear the petition afresh and pass an order with reasons. This petition was filed by Vikas Tripathi, the vice-president of the Rouse Avenue Court Bar Association.
Tripathi alleged that,
Sonia Gandhi's name was added to the voter list of the New Delhi Assembly constituency in January 1980, while she was not an Indian citizen at that time. According to him, the Election Commission removed her name from the voter list in 1982 after irregularities were found.
In the complaint, Tripathi alleged that the removal of her name was due to forged documents. He claimed that Sonia Gandhi's name was re-included in the voter list in 1983, the same year she acquired Indian citizenship.
Live Law reported that on Monday, the sessions court stated that the trial court did not comply with the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Security Code (BNSS). The court noted that the magistrate had not sought a status report from the police.
The sessions court also stated that,
the magistrate did not discuss how Sonia Gandhi's name was included in the voter list in 1980, removed in 1982, and then re-added in 1983.
The next hearing in this case will be on September 29 before the additional chief judicial magistrate.
Earlier, Tripathi had filed a revision petition in the sessions court challenging the magistrate's order. Following this, the court had issued a notice to Sonia Gandhi on December 9.
On February 6, Sonia Gandhi told the court that the complaint filed against her is “completely false, baseless, politically motivated, and an abuse of the legal process.”
She argued that,
the complaint is based solely on speculation, media reports, and “imaginary applications,” and the complainant has not presented any fundamental documents.
Special Judge Vishal Gogane dismissed the order given by the magistrate on September 11, 2025, stating it was “non-speaking” (without sufficient reasons). The court noted that the magistrate did not comply with Section 175(3) of the Indian Citizenship Security Code (BNSS). According to the judge, the arguments of the police officer were not heard, and a status report from the relevant police station was also not sought.
The judge stated that,
the order did not provide sufficient reasons, and the magistrate did not consider both options available under the law, which included directing the registration of an FIR or, alternatively, proceeding under the BNSS.
The court said that,
instead of considering the main question of whether the complaint reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the magistrate diverted the case towards the issue of citizenship.
The Delhi court has now sent the case back to the magistrate. The court directed that after hearing new arguments from both parties, a new order with reasons should be passed. The next hearing in the case will be on September 29.
While pronouncing the order, Judge Gogane stated that,
the law is of utmost priority for any judicial order, and no order should tamper with the facts. A reasoned order is necessary to determine whether allegations of tampering or fraud in including a voter's or non-citizen's name in the voter list prima facie constitute forgery or fraud.
The court further stated that,
the relevant order did not discuss the significance of the sequence of including, removing, and re-including Gandhi's name in the voter lists of 1980, 1982, and 1983, and why the complaint was completely dismissed. The judge noted that the ACJM passed such an order without proper consideration regarding the disclosure of a cognizable offence, which did not provide any reasons.
The court concluded that the relevant order contains a clear error of law, as the arguments of the relevant police officer were not heard, and a status report from the relevant police station was also not sought. The court stated that due to the lack of reasons provided for the allegations related to the facts, this order became ineffective. Additionally, the ACJM's comments regarding the powers of the central government concerning citizenship and the powers of the Election Commission regarding the voter list were entirely inappropriate and incorrect.
While quashing the ACJM's order, the court clarified that it cannot itself decide on the demand for registering an FIR under Section 175(3) of the BNSS in the role of the ACJM. The court stated that this task can only be performed by the magistrate, and the revision court cannot place itself in the role of a judicial magistrate. The court then sent the case back to the ACJM and directed that a reasoned order be passed after investigation. The judge instructed the ACJM to provide a clear and reasoned order on whether the allegations made against Gandhi in the complaint constitute any offence.
Tripathi claimed that Gandhi's name was included in the voter list of the New Delhi Assembly constituency in 1980, while she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. He alleged that Gandhi's name was removed from the voter list in 1982 and re-included in 1983.
The order that was challenged,
stated that the lower court could not intervene in the jurisdiction of the Election Commission by hearing the petition demanding the registration of an FIR against Gandhi. The court also stated that only general allegations, which do not fulfill the necessary information supporting the legal elements of fraud or forgery, cannot be considered legally sustainable.
The lower court had stated that Tripathi was relying solely on an unverified photocopy of an excerpt from the alleged voter list of 1980.