Sonia seeks dismissal of revision plea on electoral roll allegations

In a detailed reply filed through counsel before the court of Special Judge (CBI) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court, Sonia has sought dismissal of the petition, arguing that the allegations relating to her alleged inclusion in the electoral rolls prior to acquiring Indian citizenship were unfounded and unsupported by documentary evidence.

The revision petition, filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenges a September 2025 order of the magistrate court that had dismissed his complaint at the threshold. The earlier complaint had sought registration of a criminal case and investigation into alleged irregularities concerning Sonia’s inclusion in the voter list.

According to the petition, Sonia obtained Indian citizenship on April 30, 1983, but her name allegedly appeared in the 1980 voter list of New Delhi, raising questions about the basis of that entry.

Opposing the plea, Sonia’s reply states that the complainant has made serious accusations in a reckless manner, relying on assumptions, media reports and personal presumptions rather than authentic official records.

It further contends that no specific document has been identified as forged or falsified and that the allegations lack material particulars necessary to sustain criminal proceedings.

The response also argues that issues relating to citizenship fall exclusively within the domain of the Central Government, while the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls are statutory functions of the Election Commission of India.

Entertaining private criminal complaints on such matters, the reply said, would amount to judicial interference in the electoral process and was beyond the jurisdiction of criminal courts.

The reply disputed claims that her name was re-entered in the electoral roll through any application supported by forged documentation, asserting that the complainant has failed to produce any authentic application or supporting record allegedly used for her inclusion.

It also rejects allegations that fabricated government identity documents were used or that she cast a vote in the 1980 General Election, describing these assertions as baseless and unsupported by evidence.

Raising further legal objections, the response states that mandatory statutory requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), including the filing of a valid supporting affidavit, were not complied with, thereby rendering the complaint legally untenable.

It also contends that the complainant is attempting to revive a controversy dating back more than four decades without foundational documentary proof, making the allegations stale in law.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 21.