'Politically motivated', Sonia Gandhi opposes plea over 1980 voter list entry in Delhi court

New Delhi: The counsel for Congress leader Sonia Gandhi on Saturday claimed before a Delhi court that a complaint alleging that she was included in the electoral roll three years before acquiring Indian citizenship in 1983 was politically motivated and filed for an extraneous reason.

The reply was submitted before Special Judge Vishal Gogne, who is hearing a revision plea challenging a September 11, 2025, magistrate's order refusing to probe the allegation.

After the response was filed, the court posted the matter for further proceedings on February 21.

The magisterial court's order had dismissed the complaint filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, vice president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association of the Rouse Avenue courts.

On Saturday, advocates Tarannum Cheema, Kanishka Singh and Akash Singh, Gandhi's counsels, filed her response, which claimed the allegations were "wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law”.

Seeking dismissal of the plea, they said the magisterial court rightly observed that matters of citizenship were exclusively under the Central government's domain, while an electoral roll dispute was the sole prerogative of the Election Commission.

"Criminal courts cannot usurp these functions by entertaining private complaints disguised under IPC/BNS sections. This is barred by the doctrine of separation of powers and would violate Article 329 of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial interference in the electoral process," the reply said.

It added that the complaint had been filed for an extraneous reason, terming it politically motivated, and that a controversy raised over 25 years back was being “recycled”.

The reply also said the complaint did not provide any foundational documents.

"It is claimed that the answering respondent's (Sonia Gandhi's) application/request in 1980 led to the inclusion of her name in the electoral roll. However, there is no mention about the date, oath particulars, or contents of the application.

"No copy of such application has been attached with the complaint. Even a bald claim has not been made that the complainant applied for a copy of the called application/request," the reply said.

It added, "The complainant seeks an investigation into the imaginary and motivated allegations without making any essential factual averments."

The reply also said that it was misleading to presume that a person's name is included in the roll because she had applied for such inclusion by way of submission of Form 6.

"It is further added here that it shall be impossible for any person to search and place on record reliable evidentiary material after a passage of more than 40 years. It is well settled that such extremely stale allegations ought not to be entertained, as such malicious prosecution is violative of the letter and spirit of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution," the response contended.

The September 2025 court order had said that the complaint was "fashioned with the object of clothing the court with jurisdiction through allegations which are legally untenable, deficient in substance, and beyond the scope of this forum's authority".

Tripathi's counsel, senior advocate Pavan Narang, had alleged before the magisterial court that in January 1980, Sonia Gandhi's name was added as a voter of the New Delhi constituency when she was not an Indian citizen.

He had claimed "some forgery" and a public authority being "cheated".

The magistrate, however, dismissed the plea seeking a probe by holding that the complainant sought to set the criminal law in motion by persuading the court to assume jurisdiction, which did not vest in it legally.