Congress Leader Sonia Gandhi has opposed the criminal revision petition filed against her, alleging inclusion in the electoral rolls prior to acquiring Indian citizenship, and sought its dismissal.
Stating her reply in the Rouse Avenue Court, Gandhi’s lawyers termed the accusations “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated and an abuse of the process of law”, and said the plea is based on incorrect, misleading and speculative facts.
In a reply filed through advocates Tarannum Cheema, Kanishka Singh, Akash Singh and Akshay Nagarajan before the Court of Special Judge (CBI) Vishal Gogne, Gandhi said the revision petition should be dismissed on the ground that it is based on conjectures, stale references and lacks any essential factual foundation.
The response adds that the complainant has made serious accusations in a reckless manner based on assumptions, media reports and personal presumptions rather than authentic records. It states that no specific document has been identified as having been forged or falsified and that the allegations lack material particulars.
Sonia Gandhi's reply further maintains that matters relating to citizenship fall exclusively within the domain of the Central Government, while preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls is the statutory responsibility of the Election Commission of India. It contends that criminal courts cannot assume jurisdiction over such issues by entertaining private complaints, as this would amount to interference in the electoral process.
The response also disputes claims that her name was re-entered in the electoral roll on the basis of any application or forged documentation. It states that the complainant has failed to place on record any authentic application or supporting record allegedly used for inclusion in the voter list, nor has any attempt been shown to obtain such documents through lawful means.
Also Read: Court gives Sonia time to respond in Electoral Roll Plea case
Denying further allegations, the reply rejects presumptions that fabricated government identity documents were used to obtain registration or that she cast a vote in the 1980 general election. It describes such claims as baseless assertions made without evidence.
The response also questions the reliance placed on old media reports, stating that such material does not carry legal recognition and cannot form the basis of criminal proceedings. It contends that the complainant is attempting to revive a controversy from 1980-83 after more than four decades without any foundational documentary proof, making the allegations stale and legally untenable.
Legal objections have also been raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The reply states that mandatory statutory requirements under the BNSS were not complied with, including proper filing of a valid affidavit, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The revision petition has been filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenging the Magistrate Court’s September 2025 order, which had dismissed his earlier complaint at the threshold. The Magistrate had 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.
Follow us
