Congress Leader Sonia Gandhi.
A Delhi sessions court has set aside a magistrate’s earlier refusal to direct registration of an FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi over an allegation concerning her name in the electoral roll, ordering that the complaint be considered afresh.
The ruling does not establish that Sonia Gandhi was unlawfully included in the electoral roll or that any offence was committed. Instead, the court found shortcomings in the magistrate’s earlier order and directed a fresh consideration of the complaint after hearing both the complainant and Delhi Police.
The case centres on a complaint filed by Vikas Tripathi, who alleged that Gandhi’s name appeared in the electoral roll for the New Delhi constituency in 1980, even though she became an Indian citizen in April 1983.
Judge Visha Gogne, while setting aside the September 2025 order of the magistrate, said the matter required a reasoned decision on whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.
The court also directed the magistrate to comply with the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) while reconsidering the matter.
What has the court actually decided?
The most important point in Monday’s order is that the sessions court has not ordered an FIR against Sonia Gandhi.
Instead, it has sent the matter back for reconsideration.
The original complaint was dismissed on 11 September 2025 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya. Tripathi subsequently challenged that decision before the sessions court.
The revision court issued notice to Gandhi on 9 December 2025\. It has now allowed Tripathi’s challenge to the extent that the magistrate’s earlier order has been set aside.
The fresh hearing will require the magistrate to examine the complaint again and issue a reasoned order after hearing Tripathi and the police.
That distinction is important because the latest ruling concerns the legal process followed by the magistrate rather than a finding that the allegations against Gandhi have been proved.
What is the allegation?
Tripathi’s complaint concerns the timing of Gandhi’s alleged inclusion in the electoral roll.
According to the complaint, her name appeared in the electoral roll of the New Delhi constituency in 1980. Tripathi has alleged that this was before Gandhi acquired Indian citizenship in April 1983.
He further claimed that the name was subsequently removed from the electoral roll in 1982 and appeared again in 1983.
The complaint seeks criminal action on the basis of these allegations.
Whether the electoral-roll entries were in fact made in the manner alleged, and whether they amounted to an offence, are matters that remain to be considered through the legal process.
The latest court order does not itself determine those factual questions.
Why did the sessions court set aside the earlier order?
Judge Gogne criticised the magistrate’s September 2025 decision for failing to adequately address whether the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.
The sessions court described the earlier order as improper and said it contained a manifest error of law.
One issue highlighted by the court was the failure to seek a status report or hearing submission from the police before deciding the complaint.
The court held that the magistrate should have followed the applicable procedural requirements under the BNSS.
The reasoning is significant because applications seeking an FIR through a magistrate require the court to consider whether the material before it discloses a cognisable offence and whether further police investigation is warranted.
The sessions court’s direction means that these questions must now be examined again.
Court highlights importance of electoral rolls
The sessions court also placed broader emphasis on the integrity of electoral rolls.
It observed that the sanctity of electoral rolls is fundamental to a parliamentary democracy and said that allegations involving tampering, fraudulent entries, the inclusion of a non-citizen or false declarations warrant a reasoned judicial consideration.
The observation does not mean that the allegations against Gandhi have been established.
Rather, the court was explaining why allegations concerning the integrity of electoral records should be dealt with through a proper and reasoned legal process.
Electoral rolls determine who is registered to vote, making their accuracy an important element of the electoral system.
What has Sonia Gandhi said?
Gandhi has rejected the allegations and opposed the complaint.
In her response before the court, she described the case as “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law”.
She argued that the complaint was based on assumptions, media reports and what she characterised as “imaginary applications”, rather than documentary evidence establishing wrongdoing.
Her response also pointed out that Tripathi had not produced copies of the alleged applications for voter registration, citizenship documents or records that were claimed to have been forged.
She further argued that the complainant had not demonstrated any attempt to lawfully obtain such documents.
These are Gandhi’s legal submissions and remain contested in the proceedings.
READ: ELP Advises Birla Estates on Massive Navi Mumbai Housing Project Redevelopment
What happens next?
The matter will now return to the magistrate for fresh consideration.
The magistrate will have to hear the complainant and Delhi Police and then issue a reasoned order addressing the complaint in accordance with the applicable legal procedure.
Several outcomes remain possible at that stage. The magistrate could again decline to order an FIR, or could take a different view after considering the material and submissions placed before the court.
The sessions court’s decision therefore keeps the complaint alive but does not resolve the underlying allegation.
The case is also distinct from any determination by an election authority about the historical electoral-roll entries. The criminal proceedings, if they progress, would involve separate questions about whether the alleged conduct meets the legal requirements for an offence.
For now, the central development is procedural: a Delhi sessions court has found that the earlier refusal to direct an FIR was not adequately reasoned and has ordered a fresh hearing.
The allegations concerning Sonia Gandhi’s electoral-roll history will therefore have to be examined again by the magistrate, while Gandhi’s position remains that the complaint lacks documentary foundation and is legally misconceived.
Don’t Miss: Open University Degrees Obtained Before 2017 Remain Valid: Supreme Court
Also Read: Supreme Court Overhauls Judicial Recruitment, Cuts Down 3-year Practice Rule
