Sonia Gandhi has opposed a revision petition in the Rouse Avenue Court, calling it baseless and politically motivated. She denied allegations about her electoral roll inclusion before citizenship and argued the matter falls under the Central Government and Election Commission, not criminal courts. She has sought dismissal of the petition
-1770447729599_d.png "Sonia Gandhi seeks dismissal of revision plea in Rouse Avenue Court")
Sonia Gandhi challenges criminal revision petition over citizenship claims. File Pic
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has opposed a criminal revision petition filed against her in the Rouse Avenue Court, calling it misleading, speculative and politically motivated. In her reply, she said the plea is “wholly misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of the process of law,” and has sought its dismissal.
While filing her response through counsel before Special Judge (CBI) Vishal Gogne, Sonia Gandhi challenged the claims that her name was included in electoral rolls before she acquired Indian citizenship. She said the complainant has relied on assumptions, media reports and personal beliefs instead of verified records, reported ANI.
The reply states that no specific document has been identified as forged or falsified and that the allegations lack material details.
Sonia Gandhi also argues that issues related to citizenship fall exclusively under the authority of the Central Government, while the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls are the statutory responsibility of the Election Commission of India.
Her reply further mentions that criminal courts cannot intervene in such matters through private complaints, as this would amount to interference in the electoral process, reported ANI.
Background of the case
As reported by ANI, a revision petition was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenging a Magistrate Court order from September 2025 that had dismissed his complaint at the threshold. The Magistrate had ruled that matters relating to citizenship and electoral rolls fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Government and the Election Commission of India and cannot be decided through a criminal complaint.
Sonia Gandhi’s reply, filed through advocates Tarannum Cheema, Kanishka Singh, Akash Singh and Akshay Nagarajan, reiterates that the petition is based on conjecture, outdated references and lacks any essential factual foundation, and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
No proof of forged documents or voting
Sonia Gandhi has also denied claims that her name was re-entered in the electoral roll based on any application or forged documents. The response notes that the complainant has failed to place any authentic application or supporting records on file or show that efforts were made to obtain such documents through legal means. Allegations that fabricated identity documents were used or that she voted in the 1980 general election have also been rejected as baseless and unsupported by evidence.
The reply questions the reliance on decades-old media reports, stating that such material has no legal standing and cannot form the basis of criminal proceedings. It adds that the complainant is attempting to revive a controversy from 1980–83 after more than 40 years without any documentary foundation, rendering the allegations stale and legally untenable.
Legal Objections to Maintainability
Legal objections have also been raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The reply states that mandatory statutory requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), including the filing of a valid affidavit, were not complied with. As a result, it argues, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition.
(With ANI Inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
