Delhi court sets aside order refusing FIR plea against Sonia Gandhi over voter roll entry

• Delhi court sets aside magistrate's order refusing to direct an FIR against Sonia Gandhi over the alleged inclusion of her name in the 1980 electoral rolls, and sent the matter back for a fresh, reasoned order.

• Special judge Vishal Gogne found the earlier order non-speaking and criticised the failure to adequately examine the alleged sequence of inclusion, deletion and re-entry of Gandhi's name in the 1980, 1982 and 1983 electoral rolls.

• The court did not order an FIR itself, holding that the power to consider such a request under Section 175(3) of the BNSS rests with the magistrate.

A Delhi court on Monday, 21 September set aside a magistrate's order refusing to direct registration of an FIR against senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over the alleged inclusion of her name in the electoral rolls in 1980, three years before she acquired Indian citizenship.

Special judge Vishal Gogne of the Dwarka Courts held that the magistrate's order was a complete non-speaking order, lacking adequate reasons. The court remanded the matter to the ACJM and directed it to pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties, conducting an inquiry and hearing the concerned police officer. The matter will next come up before the ACJM on 29 September.

While pronouncing the order, Gogne observed that a judicial order must engage with both the law and the facts before it. The court said allegations concerning the fraudulent inclusion or tampering of a voter's name, including where the person's eligibility as a voter is questioned, warranted a reasoned examination of whether offences such as forgery or cheating were disclosed.

The court noted that the impugned order did not examine the sequence in which Gandhi's name was allegedly included, deleted and re-entered in the electoral rolls in 1980, 1982 and 1983. It also found no adequate reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.

The judge held that there was non-application of mind by the ACJM in considering whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. The court further found fault with the failure to hear the concerned police officer and to call for a status report from the police station.

At the same time, the court clarified that it could not itself decide the prayer for registration of an FIR under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Such an exercise could only be undertaken by the magistrate, it said, adding that a revisional court could not assume the role of a judicial magistrate.

The court accordingly remanded the matter to the ACJM for a fresh, reasoned order after an inquiry. Gogne directed the ACJM to specifically consider whether the allegations made in the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.

The criminal revision petition was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, who is seeking criminal action against Gandhi. He had challenged the ACMM's order of 11 September 2025, which had rejected his plea seeking registration of an FIR.

Tripathi's case is that Gandhi's name appeared in the electoral roll of the New Delhi constituency in 1980, while she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. He has alleged that her name was subsequently deleted from the electoral roll in 1982 and re-entered in 1983, and that forged documents were used for the earlier inclusion.

Senior advocate Ajay Burman appeared for Tripathi.

The lower court had earlier held that it could not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Election Commission by entertaining a plea seeking an FIR against Gandhi. It had also said that bald assertions, without the essential particulars required to establish the statutory ingredients of cheating or forgery, could not constitute a legally sustainable accusation. The magistrate had noted that Tripathi was relying on an extract of the electoral roll that was a photocopy of an allegedly uncertified 1980 electoral-roll extract.

The latest order does not direct registration of an FIR against Gandhi. It sets aside the earlier order and requires the magistrate to reconsider the complaint and pass a fresh, reasoned order.

With PTI inputs