A Delhi sessions court has ordered a fresh hearing on a complaint seeking an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over allegations related to her name appearing in the 1980 electoral roll for New Delhi, despite her acquiring Indian citizenship in April 1983. The ruling, issued by Judge Visha Gogne, does not determine whether Gandhi was unlawfully included or if an offence occurred. Instead, it sets aside a September 2025 magistrate’s order for failing to properly assess whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The case stems from a complaint filed by Vikas Tripathi, who alleged Gandhi’s name appeared in the 1980 voter list, was removed in 1982, and reappeared in 1983. The sessions court found the magistrate’s decision improper, noting it lacked a reasoned examination of the complaint and failed to seek a status report from Delhi Police. The court emphasized that allegations involving electoral rolls—such as fraudulent entries or non-citizen inclusions—require careful judicial scrutiny due to their impact on democratic integrity.
The ruling does not order an FIR against Gandhi. Instead, it directs the magistrate to reconsider the complaint after hearing both the complainant and police, in compliance with BNSS procedures. The magistrate’s original dismissal, issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya on September 11, 2025, is now void. The sessions court’s notice to Gandhi was issued on December 9, 2025.
Gandhi’s legal team calls allegations frivolous
Gandhi’s legal response, filed in court, dismissed the allegations as “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law.” She argued the complaint relied on assumptions and media reports rather than documentary evidence, such as forged applications or citizenship records. Her team also pointed out that Tripathi had not produced copies of the alleged voter registration documents or records claimed to be falsified.
In practice, the court’s decision ensures the complaint cannot be dismissed outright without a reasoned legal assessment. While the ruling does not establish the factual basis of the allegations, it highlights the need for procedural rigor in cases involving electoral integrity. The magistrate’s next hearing will determine whether the complaint warrants further police investigation.
His complaint asserts this constituted a violation of electoral laws, though the court has not yet ruled on whether such conduct meets the legal threshold for a cognisable offence. The case remains pending as the magistrate prepares to re-examine the matter under the court’s new directives.
Magistrate must now assess cognisable offence claims
The magistrate’s next hearing will focus on whether the complaint discloses a cognisable offence under the BNSS. The court‘s order requires a detailed assessment of Tripathi’s claims, including the timing of Gandhi’s name in the 1980 voter list, its removal in 1982, and its alleged reappearance in 1983. The magistrate must now consider whether these entries, if proven, would constitute a violation of electoral laws-specifically, whether they involved fraudulent inclusion or misrepresentation of citizenship status.
Delhi Police will be required to submit a status report or hearing submission related to the complaint. The BNSS requires magistrates to evaluate complaints involving electoral fraud by considering whether the material discloses a cognisable offence and whether further police investigation is warranted. In this case, the magistrate must determine whether Tripathi’s allegations-relying as they do on unverified voter roll entries-provide sufficient grounds for a formal police investigation. The court’s emphasis on procedural rigor reflects the BNSS’s requirement that magistrates assess complaints for cognisability before directing an FIR.
The BNSS outlines specific criteria for evaluating complaints related to electoral rolls. Under Section 173, a magistrate may direct an FIR if the complaint discloses evidence of:
- Fraudulent inclusion of a non-citizen or ineligible voter in the electoral roll;
- False declarations made during voter registration;
- Tampering with official records, including forged applications or citizenship documents.
Leave a Reply