New Delhi [India], February 7 : A reply has been filed on behalf of Sonia Gandhi before the Rouse Avenue Court opposing the revision petition that alleges her name was fraudulently included in the voter list before she acquired Indian citizenship. In her response, she has contested the plea, stating that it is based on incorrect and misleading facts.
The matter is now scheduled to be heard on February 21. The revision petition has been filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenging the Magistrate Court's September 2025 order, which had dismissed his complaint seeking registration of a case and investigation into alleged irregularities in the electoral rolls.
According to the petition, Sonia Gandhi acquired Indian citizenship on April 30, 1983, but her name had allegedly appeared in the 1980 voter list of New Delhi. The plea questions how her name was included in the electoral roll at that time. It also raises concerns over the deletion of her name from the voter list in 1982 and seeks clarification on the documents used for her inclusion in the 1980 rolls, alleging that the earlier entry may have been based on forged documents.
Opposing these claims, Sonia Gandhi, in her reply, has maintained that the allegations are unfounded and that the petition is built on incorrect and misleading assertions.
Recently, the Sessions Court at Rouse Avenue had issued a notice to Sonia Gandhi while hearing the revision petition. The direction was passed by Sessions Judge Vishal Gogne after preliminary submissions were made on behalf of the revisionist.
Senior Advocate Pavan Narang, appearing for Vikas Tripathi, had argued that the material placed on record indicated serious irregularities in the manner her name was entered into the electoral roll before she became an Indian citizen. He submitted that certain documents may have been forged or falsified to secure her inclusion in the 1980 rolls and pointed out that her name was later deleted and then re-entered in 1983 on the basis of an application filed in January 1983.
He further argued that under the Representation of the People Act, only an Indian citizen can be enrolled as a voter, and therefore, the entries require judicial scrutiny. He also stated that while the initial complaint relied on an article containing clips of electoral rolls, the revisionist has since obtained attested copies from the Election Commission of India and placed them on record to support the allegations.
The revision petition stems from Tripathi's earlier complaint, which was dismissed by the Magistrate at the threshold on the ground that it lacked legal foundation and relied on uncertified photocopies of electoral records. The Magistrate had also observed that issues relating to citizenship and electoral rolls fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Government and the Election Commission of India and cannot be adjudicated through a criminal complaint.