A Delhi court has sent back for fresh consideration a complaint seeking an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over allegations that her name was included in the electoral roll in 1980, before she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983.
The Special Court for MP/MLA cases at Rouse Avenue set aside a Magistrate's order that had refused to direct registration of an FIR and asked the lower court to reconsider the matter after obtaining a police status report. The case is now listed before the Rouse Avenue Magistrate Court on September 29.
The development prompted a sharp response from the BJP on Tuesday, with party spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari accusing the Congress of "theft of democracy" while referring to the party's allegations of "vote theft" against the BJP.
Court orders fresh consideration of electoral roll complaint
The complaint centres on allegations that Gandhi's name appeared in the New Delhi electoral roll in 1980, despite her obtaining Indian citizenship only on April 30, 1983. According to the allegations, her name was subsequently deleted from the electoral roll in 1982 and added again in 1983.
The court criticised the earlier dismissal of the complaint, observing that it had been rejected largely on the basis of photocopies that had not been verified. It noted that the complaint could not simply be treated as a "bald assertion on the ground of a photocopy of an unverified record".
Special Judge Vishal Gogne also held that the revisional court could not assume the role of the Magistrate. The matter was therefore remanded to the lower court for a fresh decision.
"The revisional court cannot assume the role of a magistrate court. The matter is remanded back and decided afresh. The court shall call a status report from the concerned police officer and shall pass a speaking order after hearing the concerned police officer," the court said.
The judge also found legal infirmities in the earlier order, including the failure to seek a police status report and hear the concerned police officer. The court said the Magistrate had not adequately addressed whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.
BJP questions Gandhi's voting eligibility in 1980
Reacting to the order, BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Constitution requires a person to be an Indian citizen to vote.
"In 1980, Sonia Gandhi was not a citizen of India. A petition was filed in court in 1980 asking on what basis Sonia Gandhi was allowed to cast a vote when she was not a citizen of India. Did she attempt forgery of documents?" Bhandari said at a press conference.
He said the court's decision showed that an investigation into whether a cognisable offence had been committed should be considered.
"Yesterday, a Delhi court ordered a magisterial court to probe whether a cognisable offence was committed. Those talking about 'vote chori' are indulging in theft of democracy," Bhandari said.
He further cited the court's criticism of the earlier order, saying the Magistrate had failed to apply its mind and had not performed its core function of determining whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.
The BJP's remarks came as the Congress continues to accuse the BJP of "vote theft", making the revived case part of a wider political dispute over electoral rolls and voting rights.
Sonia Gandhi rejects allegations
The complaint was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi and sought registration of an FIR over the alleged pre-citizenship inclusion of Gandhi's name in the electoral roll.
Gandhi has opposed the proceedings, describing the allegations as misconceived and unsupported. In her response to the revision petition, she argued that the case relied on speculative assumptions, media reports and what she termed "imaginary applications" rather than foundational documentary evidence.
Her response also questioned the absence of copies of the alleged voter-registration applications, citizenship-related documents or records purportedly showing forgery. Gandhi maintained that the allegations had been made without establishing the underlying documents or demonstrating attempts to lawfully obtain them.
The legal dispute therefore remains at the stage of reconsideration of the complaint. The Magistrate Court is expected to seek a police status report before deciding whether further proceedings, including an investigation, are warranted.
The matter will come up again on September 29.