Sonia Gandhi’s Lawyer Rejects Citizenship Allegations, Calls Them Politically Motivated

New Delhi, Feb 7, 2026: Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s legal team on Saturday told a Delhi court that allegations related to her citizenship and voter registration are entirely false, baseless, and politically motivated. They argued that the complaint was filed with external motivations and represents a misuse of legal procedures.

The response was submitted before Special Judge Vishal Gogane, who is hearing a review petition challenging a magistrate’s order from September 11, 2025, which had refused to investigate the allegations. The court scheduled the next hearing for February 21, 2026.

Sonia Gandhi’s lawyers Taranum Cheema, Kanishka Singh, and Akash Singh stated in the response that the complaint, filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association, was “entirely false, unfounded, politically motivated, and an abuse of legal procedure.” They requested the petition be dismissed, noting that the magistrate had correctly ruled that matters of citizenship fall under the central government’s jurisdiction, while voter list issues are under the Election Commission’s authority.

The response further argued that criminal courts cannot entertain private complaints under IPC or BNS provisions that attempt to bypass the constitutional division of powers, citing Article 329 of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in electoral matters. It added that the complaint was politically motivated, revived after 25 years, and lacked any substantive documentation.

The lawyers emphasized the difficulty of producing reliable evidence for events that occurred over four decades ago and said pursuing such old allegations violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Background: Tripathi’s legal team had alleged that Sonia Gandhi’s name was included in the New Delhi electoral rolls in January 1980, three years before she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. They claimed fraud and misrepresentation involving a public authority. The magistrate had dismissed the request for investigation, stating the complaint was an attempt to give the court jurisdiction over matters it legally could not entertain.