New Delhi [India], September 21 : In a key legal development regarding Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s voter registration in the early 1980s, the Special Court for MP/MLA cases at Rouse Avenue has set aside a Magistrate’s order that had refused to direct the registration of an FIR against her.
Allowing the criminal revision petition filed by activist Vikas Tripathi, Special Judge Vishal Gogne held that the Magistrate Court's 2025 rejection order was "non-speaking" and "perverse," remanding the matter back to the lower court for fresh adjudication on September 29.
In setting aside the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's (ACJM) previous order, Special Judge Gogne noted significant procedural and legal flaws in how the complaint was dismissed:
The court held that the impugned order failed to record reasons for rejecting the complaint or establish whether a cognizable offence had been disclosed. "The order is a non-speaking order. It is liable to be set aside," the Special Judge observed.
The Sessions Court criticised the lower court's reasoning regarding citizenship jurisdiction, stating that the "observation regarding the central government and Election Commission in relation to citizenship are improper."
The court criticised the dismissal of the complaint based solely on the submission of unverified photocopies, noting that the complaint was rejected as a "bald assertion on the ground of a photocopy of an unverified record."
Highlighting that the voter list is meant strictly for Indian citizens, the court noted allegations that Gandhi's name appeared in the electoral roll with her address at Safdarjung Road, New Delhi, in 1980—prior to obtaining Indian citizenship in April 1983. The court pointed out that her name was reportedly included in 1980, deleted in 1982, and re-added in 1983.
Clarifying that a revisional court cannot assume the duties of a Magistrate, the Special Judge directed the lower court to reconsider the matter systematically:
"The revisional court cannot assume the role of a magistrate court. The matter is remanded back and decided afresh. The court shall call a status report from the concerned police officer and shall pass a speaking order after hearing the concerned police officer."
The Rouse Avenue Court had reserved its order on July 25, 2026, following extensive arguments from both sides regarding the validity of electoral documents.
For the revisionist Vikas Tripathi, Senior Advocate Ajay Burman appeared along with Advocate Neeraj. The core argument raised was that the respondents had failed to explain how Gandhi's name came to be included in the voter roll prior to acquiring Indian citizenship.
Arguing that "it was not possible to get the name included in the voter list without becoming an Indian Citizen," Senior Advocate Burman submitted additional documents, including an official 1980 Election Commission report obtained via an attested copy, to substantiate the claim.
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate RS Cheema appeared for Sonia Gandhi along with Advocate Tarannum Cheema.
Counsel filed a formal reply on July 4 opposing the inclusion of additional documents, maintaining that the papers placed on record by the revisionist were not genuine.
The matter now returns to the Rouse Avenue Magistrate Court, which will call for a police status report before passing a reasoned order on September 29.