A Delhi court on Monday revived a case relating to Sonia Gandhi's alleged forgery to get herself on the electoral rolls.
The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has now set aside a magisterial order refusing an FIR against Sonia Gandhi for allegedly getting her name into the electoral rolls of 1980 using forged documents.
This is because she was granted Indian citizenship only in 1983—three years after the alleged incident.
According to a Bar and Bench report, Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Dwarka Courts said that the magistrate's earlier order was a complete 'non speaking' order, lacking appropriate reasons.
A non speaking order is one that is passed without the concerned authorities offering sufficient reasons for it.
"It suffers from manifest error in law on account of non-compliance with BNSS provisions, inter alia, not calling for a status report of the hearing submission from the police," the sessions court ruled.
It then remanded the case back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, which will hear it on September 29.
How the case progressed
The report added that the original plea seeking an FIR against the Congress veteran for alleged forgery—to get into the electoral rolls of the New Delhi constituency in 1980—had been filed by a Vikas Tripathi back in 2025.
He had also claimed that despite Gandhi getting her Indian citizenship only three years later, her name had been listed in the 1980 rolls for that seat, then deleted in 1982, but then brought back in 1983.
His complaint was initially dismissed on September 11 that year by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACMM) Vaibhav Chaurasiya.
The Congress leader had also refuted the allegations at the time, arguing that the case was “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law".
Gandhi's side had also claimed that the complainant had no proper evidence to back up his "serious allegations", such as copies of alleged applications for voter registration, citizenship-related documents, or the alleged forged records. They also alleged that Tripathi had also not shown any attempt to lawfully obtain such proof either.
