‘Politically motivated’: Sonia Gandhi slams plea for inclusion in 1980 electoral roll India News
New Delhi: Member of Parliament Sonia Gandhi A Delhi court on Saturday filed a criminal revision petition against an executive order in 2025, which was described as “politically motivated and frivolous”, refusing to order an FIR because her name was allegedly included in the electoral roll of 1980, three years before she was granted Indian citizenship. The petition before Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Louth Avenue Court stated that the name of Sonia, who is Italian, was added using forged documents. The congressional veteran described the claims as a “total misunderstanding” and the plea as an “abuse of the legal process.” The plea was filed by Vikas Tripathi challenging the decision of Justice Vaibhav Chaurasiya on September 11 last year in refusing to order an FIR. Sonia was notified of the plea on December 9, 2025. Judge Gogne took note of Saturday’s response and listed the matter for argument on February 21. In her reply, Sonia said that the first instance (district court) correctly held that the citizenship question “was entirely within the jurisdiction of the central government” and the electoral roll dispute “was within the scope of the central government only”. election commission of indiaShe argued that the criminal courts cannot entertain private complaints disguised as IPC or BNS offences, as this would violate the principle of separation of powers and Article 329 of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial interference in the electoral process. Sonia added that “controversies raised in the media 25 years ago” were being used to file amendment requests, with the accusations being “speculative and not supported by real documents” and without specifying the allegedly forged documents or their sources. Although the defense claimed that Sonia’s name had been “re-entered” into the electoral roll with an eligibility date of January 1, 1983, no supporting documentation was on record. “It is difficult to understand on what basis the respondent’s name was re-entered,” the response said.
