Sonia Gandhi voter list case: Rouse Avenue court allows fresh documents

The Rouse Avenue court has allowed the complainant in a case involving Congress leader Sonia Gandhi to submit additional documents as it hears the matter afresh following directions from a sessions court.

The complaint alleges that Sonia Gandhi's name appeared on the electoral roll in 1980, three years before she acquired Indian citizenship in April 1983.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vinod Joshi permitted the complainant to place further documents on record and listed the matter for November 18. Senior advocate Vikas Tripathi, appearing for the complainant, had sought more time to file the documents.


The case returned to the magistrate's court after a sessions court overturned its earlier decision refusing to direct the registration of an FIR against Sonia Gandhi.

On September 21, Special Judge (MP-MLA cases) Vishal Gogne allowed a revision petition filed by Tripathi against the magistrate court's 2025 order.

The sessions court found fault with the earlier decision, observing that the complaint had been dismissed on the basis of a photocopy of an unverified record.

It also described the magistrate's decision as a "non-speaking order", saying it failed to adequately explain why the complaint had been rejected.

The court also raised questions over the magistrate's observations regarding the jurisdiction of the Central government and the Election Commission in citizenship-related matters.

According to the complaint, Sonia Gandhi's name was included in the electoral roll in 1980, removed in 1982 and added again in 1983. The sessions court noted that electoral rolls are meant for Indian citizens.

It further observed that documents placed on record by the complainant showed Sonia Gandhi's name in the voter list, with Safdarjung Road in New Delhi mentioned as her residential address.

The sessions court directed the magistrate to reconsider the complaint after obtaining a status report from the concerned police officer. It also asked the magistrate to hear the officer and pass a reasoned order.

At the same time, the sessions court made it clear that it could not step into the magistrate's role and decide the complaint itself.

The matter is now back before the Rouse Avenue court for fresh consideration.

(With ANI inputs)