Sonia Gandhi Granted Time by Court to Respond in Voter List ‘Forgery’ Case

Senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has received temporary relief from a Delhi court in a voter list controversy. The matter pertains to allegations that her name was allegedly included in the electoral rolls through fraudulent means, prompting calls for an FIR.

The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi on Tuesday granted Sonia Gandhi time to respond to the petition seeking directions for the registration of an FIR in connection with the purported irregularity. The petition challenges a magistrate’s earlier order that had declined to investigate the claims. According to the allegations, Sonia Gandhi’s name appeared on the voter list three years prior to acquiring Indian citizenship in 1983.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne accepted the request made by Sonia Gandhi’s counsel and adjourned the hearing until February 7, 2026. Notices regarding the petition had been issued to Sonia Gandhi and the Delhi Police on December 9 last year. The revision petition was filed by Advocate Vikas Tripathi, Vice President of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association.

Claims of Forgery and Deception

Senior Advocate Pawan Narang, appearing on behalf of Advocate Tripathi, alleged before the magistrate that Sonia Gandhi’s name was added to the New Delhi constituency voter list in January 1980, when she was not yet an Indian citizen. The petition claims “forgery and deception” in this inclusion.

Magistrate’s Earlier Observations

In its September 11 order, the magistrate had ruled that the matter fell completely outside its jurisdiction. The court noted that attempting such an investigation would amount to undue interference in responsibilities assigned to competent constitutional authorities, namely the Central Government and the Election Commission, and would violate Article 329 of the Indian Constitution.

The court had also cautioned the petitioner that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Simply invoking provisions under BNS 2023 to add alleged offences does not justify any interference in the constitutional powers of the concerned authorities.