Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Dec 5: A criminal revision petition has been moved before a Delhi court challenging an earlier decision that declined to order the registration of an FIR against Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi for allegedly being listed on the electoral roll in 1980, three years before she became an Indian citizen. The plea was taken up on Friday by Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne at Rouse Avenue Courts, who directed that the matter be heard on December 9.
The petition, filed by Vikas Tripathi, contests the September 11 order of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia. In that ruling, the magistrate dismissed Tripathi’s complaint seeking a police investigation into what he claims was Sonia Gandhi’s wrongful inclusion in the New Delhi constituency’s voter list.
Tripathi maintains that Gandhi’s name first appeared on the roll in 1980, even though she was granted Indian citizenship only in April 1983. He argues that her name was removed in 1982 and reinstated in 1983 after citizenship formalities were complete — a sequence he believes indicates the use of forged documents in the initial 1980 listing, which he says amounts to a cognisable offence.
The magistrate, however, had held that directing an inquiry would amount to judicial overreach into matters constitutionally assigned to electoral authorities. He observed that such an investigation would contravene Article 329 of the Constitution, which generally prohibits courts from intervening in electoral rolls except through the mechanism of election petitions.
Tripathi has insisted that the alleged manipulation should be probed by police, arguing that enrolling a non-citizen as a voter strikes at the “very foundation” of the electoral process. The issue has long carried political overtones, with BJP leaders citing the episode as evidence of alleged voter list tampering, while the Congress maintains that the accusations are unfounded and politically motivated.
The court will now examine whether the magistrate’s refusal warrants a fresh direction for registration of an FIR.