Key Points:
Special Judge Vishal Gogne set aside the earlier order and directed the magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh after finding legal shortcomings in the previous order.
Advocate Vikas Tripathi alleges Sonia Gandhi’s name appeared in the New Delhi electoral roll in 1980, was deleted in 1982 and re-entered in 1983, with alleged use of false documents.
The court did say the magistrate's order was “non-speaking” and suffered from a “manifest error in law”, and cited non-compliance with Section 175(3) BNSS.
ON MONDAY, September 21, 2026, a Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court set aside an earlier order by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who had refused to direct the registration of an FIR in a case involving Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. The case alleged that Sonia Gandhi’s name was included in the electoral roll years before she acquired Indian citizenship. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Delhi court has now sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Special Judge allowed the revised petition filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, who had challenged the September 11, 2025 order of the magistrate. Tripathi had earlier filed the petition seeking a police investigation into the alleged electoral roll irregularity. In the new order, the Delhi court directed the magistrate to reconsider the matter after hearing all the parties, including the Delhi Police, and pass a fresh order. The matter will be heard by the magistrate again on September 29, 2026.
The Delhi court set aside the magistrate’s order, highlighting that the case suffered from a “manifest error in law.” The court ruled, “The impugned order suffers from a manifest error in law on account of non-compliance with Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), inter alia, not hearing the submissions of the police officer concerned and non-calling of a status report from the police station concerned.”
The court observed that the matter had not been adequately handled by the magistrate, who failed to consider the two courses of action available under the law. The first was to direct the registration of an FIR, while the second was to proceed with an inquiry under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The court held that the magistrate failed to examine the central question of whether a cognizable offence, such as forgery, had been committed and instead focused on the issue of citizenship. But despite highlighting all this, the sessions court did not decide whether an FIR should be filed in the case and instead found that the earlier order had not adequately examined the legal issues.
It said that rather than determining whether the allegations against Gandhi disclosed a cognisable offence, the magistrate rejected the complaint without properly considering the legal options available. The court therefore directed the magistrate to hear the matter afresh, consider the submissions of the police and the complainant, and then pass a reasoned order according to law.
The case stems from an allegation by advocate Vikas Tripathi that Sonia Gandhi’s name appeared in the New Delhi constituency electoral roll in 1980, before she acquired Indian citizenship. He highlighted that her name appeared in 1980, was later deleted in 1982 and was re-entered in 1983, after she acquired citizenship.
Tripathi, vice-president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association, argued that a police investigation was needed into the circumstances surrounding these electoral entries, alleging that false or incorrect documents may have been used. He therefore sought a police investigation into the matter, alleging forgery, fabrication and fraudulent declarations.
He filed the petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on September 11, 2025, on the ground that it lacked the essential particulars of cheating and forgery. Tripathi then approached the special court for revision, where the court found that the magistrate had not adequately considered the allegations.
Economist and former Union Law and Justice Minister Subramanian Swamy has also questioned Sonia Gandhi’s citizenship in the past. Swamy has previously argued that her citizenship was irregular and liable to be terminated and has also questioned whether she misled the country about her real name.
A 2002 Frontline article also mentioned that Swamy had filed an affidavit in the Delhi High Court contesting her citizenship.
At a press conference, he said, “A mere declaration by her is not enough, or a letter from the Ambassador of Italy, informing receipt of a letter of renunciation from her. Under Article 51 of the Italian Constitution, Italians are of two types: those residing in the republic and those not. Citizenship is not alienable.”
Swamy has also made many posts on X regarding this issue, including a 2025 post where he wrote, “Sonia & Rahul Gandhi may migrate out of India soon since both have committed shocking crimes. RG by acquiring British citizenship has to by Indian law give up Indian citizenship. Moreover in the National Herald criminal case they will go to jail for long period. Better go abroad.” In a recent post on X on September 24, 2026, Swamy wrote, “Both Gandhis, Sonia and Rahul, have no attachment to India. Their Indian Passports are fake.”
(Edited by Agniva Ray)
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store
