Sonia Gandhi NEW DELHI: Congress MP Sonia Gandhi Saturday described as “politically motivated and frivolous” a criminal revision petition before a Delhi court against a 2025 magisterial order that declined to order an FIR over alleged inclusion of her name in electoral rolls in 1980, three years before she acquired Indian citizenship. The petition before special judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue sessions court alleges that the Italian origin Sonia’s name was added using forged documents. The Congress senior described the claims as “wholly misconceived” and the plea as “abuse of the process of law”. The plea was filed by one Vikas Tripathi, challenging magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya’s refusal on Sept 11 last year to order the FIR. Sonia had been sent notices on Dec 9, 2025, over the plea. Judge Gogne noted the reply on Saturday and listed the matter for arguments on Feb 21. In her reply, Sonia said the trial (magistrate) court had rightly held that issues of citizenship fall “exclusively within the domain of the Central govt”, while electoral roll disputes are “vested solely with Election Commission of India”. She argued that criminal courts cannot entertain private complaints disguised as IPC or BNS offences, as this would violate the doctrine of separation of powers and Article 329 of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in the electoral process. Sonia added that a “controversy raised in the media more than 25 years back” was being recycled to file the revision plea, with allegations that were “speculative and unsupported” by authentic documents, and which failed to specify the documents allegedly forged or their source. Although the plea claims Sonia’s name was “re-entered” in electoral rolls with a qualifying date of Jan 1, 1983, no supporting document was placed on record. “It is incomprehensible on what basis it has been claimed that the respondent got her name re-entered,” the reply states.About the AuthorKoushiki SahaKoushiki Saha, a trainee journalist currently reporting for The Times of India, covers urban governance, infrastructure lapses, public grievances, and municipal policies with clarity and compassion. Still learning every day, she draws insights from fieldwork, lived experiences, and holding authorities accountable through persistent, people-focused reporting.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosIndia Reiterates Energy Security Priority, Signals Russia Oil Imports Will ContinueGhaziabad Sisters’ Deaths: Father’s Three Marriages Add Twist To Probe“Deal Favours US farmers” Opposition Attacks India-US Trade FrameworkFrom Tamil Pride To Global Trust: How PM Modi Used Culture To Reset India-Malaysia RelationsPM Modi In Kuala Lumpur Says India Malaysia Ties Are Rising, Unveils IMPACT Vision For Asia”To Benefit Farmers….” Shivraj Singh Chouhan Big Claim On India-US Trade DealPiyush Goyal Says Agriculture Is Self Reliant Sector As India Refuses Farm Import Benefits To USFrom Design To Silicon, India Signals Semiconductor Breakout With Semicon 2.0 RoadmapMP Minister Vijay Shah Finally Apologises For Comment Targeting Op Sindoor Face Col Sofia QureshiTurkey Sides With Pakistan On Kashmir At UN After Sharif’s Rhetoric On India’s ‘Integral’ Territory123PhotostoriesExclusive – Yuvika Choudhary on The 50: I took a break after my daughter’s birth to be there for her; now it’s time for me to return as a working momHow Taylor Swift turned fashion into her signature storytelling powerMukaish to Rabari: Underrated embroidery techniques in India that deserve more attention7 most colourful birds of Indian forestsThe 50: Major Fights That Grabbed Attention5 luxury sports cars that combine comfort with extreme powerThomas Edison once said, “I’ve not failed, I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work”: 4 lessons it teaches students6 celebrities who called out social media as ‘toxic’: Tom Holland, Selena Gomez, Kate Winslet, and moreThe ultimate footwear checklist every girl needs in her closet5 mistakes to avoid when investing in under-construction projects123Hot PicksBudget 2026Gold Silver PricesParliament Budget SessionGCC Unified Visa 2026Income Tax CalculatorPublic holidays February 2026Bank Holidays februaryTop TrendingIndia vs USA LiveCooper Kupp WifeKayla NicoleSuper Bowl LX TicketOliver RowlandJustin GaethjeLIV GolfLiam Paro vs Paddy Donovan Net WorthWinter Olympics 2026NBA Trade Update
NEW DELHI: Congress MP Sonia Gandhi Saturday described as “politically motivated and frivolous” a criminal revision petition before a Delhi court against a 2025 magisterial order that declined to order an FIR over alleged inclusion of her name in electoral rolls in 1980, three years before she acquired Indian citizenship. The petition before special judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue sessions court alleges that the Italian origin Sonia’s name was added using forged documents. The Congress senior described the claims as “wholly misconceived” and the plea as “abuse of the process of law”. The plea was filed by one Vikas Tripathi, challenging magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya’s refusal on Sept 11 last year to order the FIR. Sonia had been sent notices on Dec 9, 2025, over the plea. Judge Gogne noted the reply on Saturday and listed the matter for arguments on Feb 21. In her reply, Sonia said the trial (magistrate) court had rightly held that issues of citizenship fall “exclusively within the domain of the Central govt”, while electoral roll disputes are “vested solely with Election Commission of India”. She argued that criminal courts cannot entertain private complaints disguised as IPC or BNS offences, as this would violate the doctrine of separation of powers and Article 329 of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in the electoral process. Sonia added that a “controversy raised in the media more than 25 years back” was being recycled to file the revision plea, with allegations that were “speculative and unsupported” by authentic documents, and which failed to specify the documents allegedly forged or their source. Although the plea claims Sonia’s name was “re-entered” in electoral rolls with a qualifying date of Jan 1, 1983, no supporting document was placed on record. “It is incomprehensible on what basis it has been claimed that the respondent got her name re-entered,” the reply states.