Sonia Gandhi Opposes Criminal Revision Petition as Politically Motivated
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has formally opposed a criminal revision petition filed against her in Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court, vehemently denouncing it as "wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated and an abuse of the process of law." In her detailed reply submitted through her legal counsel before special judge (CBI) Vishal Gogne, Gandhi argues that matters pertaining to citizenship and electoral registration cannot be transformed into criminal proceedings four decades after the alleged events.
Core Arguments Against the Petition
The reply contests specific allegations that Sonia Gandhi was included in Indian electoral rolls before formally acquiring Indian citizenship. Her legal team has urged the court to dismiss the plea categorically, labeling it as baseless and speculative. According to the submitted response, the complainant's accusations rely entirely on assumptions, outdated media reports, and personal presumptions rather than any authentic government documentation or official records.
Key points emphasized in the legal reply include:
- No specific document has been identified as forged or fabricated, rendering the charges completely void of material substance.
- Matters of citizenship fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Central Government, while the Election Commission of India holds sole responsibility for maintaining and updating electoral rolls.
- Criminal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such administrative and constitutional matters, and entertaining this petition would constitute improper interference in the established electoral process.
Detailed Rebuttal of Specific Allegations
Sonia Gandhi's reply provides a point-by-point rebuttal of the allegations raised in the petition:
- Denial of Document Forgery: The response firmly denies that Gandhi's name was ever re-entered in any voter list based on a forged or improper application. It states the complainant has failed to produce any authentic document or demonstrate any lawful effort to obtain such documentation.
- Rejection of Fabricated Identity Claims: Assertions that fabricated identity documents were used are dismissed as "baseless" without evidentiary support.
- Clarification on 1980 Election: The reply also objects to claims that Gandhi voted in the 1980 general election, countering them as unsubstantiated.
- Critique of Media Report Reliance: Gandhi's legal team strongly objects to the petitioner's reliance on decades-old media reports, noting that such sources carry no legal weight and cannot form a legitimate foundation for initiating criminal proceedings.
Procedural and Jurisdictional Objections
The response raises significant procedural objections, alleging the petition fails to comply with mandatory requirements under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). A critical flaw highlighted is the absence of a valid supporting affidavit, which Gandhi's counsel argues deprives the court of necessary jurisdiction to even hear the matter.
Furthermore, the reply underscores that the complaint seeks to revive issues from the period of 1980–1983—over forty years later—without presenting any foundational proof. This, it argues, makes the case both legally stale and fundamentally untenable.
Background of the Legal Case
The criminal revision petition was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi. It challenges a September 2025 order from a Magistrate Court, which had dismissed his earlier complaint at the preliminary threshold. In that order, the Magistrate had ruled that questions concerning citizenship and electoral registration fall within the exclusive purview of the Central Government and the Election Commission of India. The Magistrate concluded these are not matters that can be adjudicated through a criminal complaint in a trial court.
Sonia Gandhi's comprehensive reply aims to reinforce this earlier judicial finding and secure a final dismissal of what her legal team characterizes as a politically driven legal maneuver lacking any factual or legal merit.
