A Delhi court has set aside a magisterial court order refusing to direct registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over the alleged inclusion of her name in the electoral rolls in 1980, before she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Dwarka Courts held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, as it failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the complaint. The Court remanded the matter to the ACJM with directions to pass a fresh, reasoned order after conducting an inquiry and hearing the concerned police officer.
The matter will now be listed before the ACJM on September 29.
While pronouncing the order, Justice Gogne observed that a judicial order must be guided by law and must adequately engage with the facts before the court. He said allegations concerning the fraudulent inclusion or tampering of a voter’s name, particularly where the eligibility of a person to be enrolled as a voter is questioned, require a reasoned examination of whether offences such as forgery or cheating are disclosed.
The Court noted that the magistrate had not examined the sequence concerning the inclusion, deletion and subsequent re-inclusion of Gandhi’s name in the electoral rolls for 1980, 1982 and 1983, or explained why the complaint was liable to be dismissed in its entirety.
It further held that the magistrate had failed to consider whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and had not heard the concerned police officer or called for a status report from the police station.
The Court also found the magistrate’s observations regarding the powers of the Central Government in matters of citizenship and the Election Commission’s jurisdiction over electoral rolls to be legally unsustainable in the context of the FIR application.
However, the Court clarified that it could not itself decide whether an FIR should be registered under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Such a determination falls within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and a revisional court cannot assume the role of the judicial magistrate.
The revision petition was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenging the ACJM’s September 11, 2025 order. Senior Advocate Pavan Narang appeared for Tripathi.
Tripathi alleged that Gandhi’s name was included in the New Delhi electoral rolls in 1980, although she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. He further alleged that her name was deleted in 1982 and re-entered in 1983, and claimed that forged documents were used for the initial inclusion.
The magistrate had earlier rejected the complaint, observing that Tripathi’s allegations were based primarily on a photocopy of an uncertified electoral-roll extract and lacked the particulars necessary to establish offences of cheating or forgery. The magistrate had also held that questions concerning citizenship and electoral rolls fell within the respective domains of the Central Government and the Election Commission.
The Delhi court has now directed the ACJM to reconsider the complaint and pass a reasoned order on whether the allegations disclose the commission of any offence.
The post Delhi Court sets aside Magistrate order in Sonia Gandhi electoral roll case, remands FIR plea for fresh decision appeared first on India Legal.