New Delhi: congressional leaders Sonia Gandhi objected to a criminal modification petition filed against her in the Louth Avenue Courthouse, calling it “completely misunderstood, frivolous, politically motivated and an abuse of the legal process.”“She believed that, forty years later, citizenship and electoral roll issues could not turn into criminal proceedings.The reply, filed through her lawyer before the court of special judge (CBI) Vishal Gogne, challenged the allegation that she was included in the electoral roll before she was granted Indian citizenship.She urged the request to be dismissed, calling it baseless and speculative.According to her response, complainant’s allegations were based on assumptions, media reports, and personal presumptions rather than actual government records.The response further emphasized that no specific documents were found to be forged or fabricated, and therefore the allegations had no substance. It argued that citizenship issues were entirely within the jurisdiction of the central government, while the Election Commission of India was responsible for maintaining the electoral rolls.The reply held that the Criminal Court could not have jurisdiction over such matters and noted that entertaining the petition would constitute interference in the electoral process.It also denied that Gandhi’s name was ever re-entered into the electoral roll as a result of any forged or improper application, saying the complainant failed to produce any genuine documents or make efforts to obtain them legally.Sonia Gandhi’s reply also dismissed the claims of fake identity documents or Gandhi’s voting in the 1980 general elections as “baseless”. The Committee also objects to the complainant’s reliance on media reports from decades ago, stating that these sources are not legally binding and cannot serve as the basis for criminal proceedings.The response emphasized that the complaint attempted to revive an issue from 1980-83 (more than four decades later) without underlying evidence, making it both archaic and legally untenable.Procedural objections were also raised claiming non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Indian Code (BNSS), including the lack of a valid affidavit, which Gandhi’s lawyers argued deprived the court of its jurisdiction.The revision petition filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi challenged a September 2025 magistrate court order dismissing his earlier complaint. The magistrate held that issues of citizenship and electoral registration fell within the purview of the central government and the electoral commission and could not be decided through criminal complaints.
