A Delhi sessions court has ordered a fresh hearing on a complaint seeking an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over allegations concerning her name on an electoral roll. The ruling sets aside a magistrate’s earlier refusal to direct police to register the case.
The court found flaws in the magistrate’s September 2025 decision. Judge Visha Gogne stated that the matter required a reasoned decision on whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. The judge found the previous order to be improper and containing a manifest error of law.
Case Sent Back for Reconsideration
Instead, it has sent the matter back for the magistrate to reconsider the original complaint. The original complaint was filed by Vikas Tripathi, who alleged that Gandhi’s name appeared in the electoral roll for the New Delhi constituency in 1980. Tripathi subsequently challenged that decision before the sessions court. The revision court issued notice to Gandhi on 9 December 2025.
The complainant claimed this was before she acquired Indian citizenship in April 1983. He further alleged the name was removed in 1982 and reappeared in 1983. The complaint seeks criminal action based on these allegations.
For now, the case concerns the legal process followed by the magistrate, not a finding that the allegations against Gandhi have been proved. The magistrate will now have to examine the complaint again and issue a reasoned order after hearing Tripathi and Delhi Police.
The court also stressed the importance of electoral roll integrity. It observed that the sanctity of electoral rolls is fundamental to a parliamentary democracy, and allegations involving fraudulent entries or the inclusion of a non-citizen warrant a proper judicial review.
Read Also: Supreme Court Debates Lawyer-Client Privilege in Tax Cases
Gandhi Rejects Allegations
In her response before the court, Sonia Gandhi rejected the allegations as “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law.” She argued the complaint was based on assumptions and media reports, not documentary evidence.
Her legal team pointed out that Tripathi had not produced copies of the alleged applications for voter registration, citizenship documents, or records claimed to have been forged. They argued he had not demonstrated any attempt to lawfully obtain such documents.
The magistrate’s fresh consideration will now weigh Gandhi’s submissions against the complainant’s allegations, leaving the underlying legal questions unresolved.
Procedural Requirements for Reconsideration
The court directed the magistrate to comply with the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) while reconsidering the matter.
One issue highlighted by the court was the failure to seek a status report or hearing submission from the police before deciding the complaint. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya had dismissed the complaint on 11 September 2025.
Outcomes Remain Unresolved
Several outcomes remain possible at that stage. The magistrate could again decline to order an FIR, or could take a different view after considering the material and submissions placed before the court.
