New Delhi: An old case related to Congress Parliamentary Party President Sonia Gandhi has once again intensified the legal debate. The question is that when Sonia Gandhi acquired Indian citizenship on 30 April 1983, how did her name get included in the voter list of New Delhi Lok Sabha constituency in 1980? Now a revision petition has been filed in Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court on this issue. Before the hearing on December 9, the discussion regarding this case has intensified in political and legal circles.
Vikas Tripathi, who filed the petition, claims that the dates of inclusion of name in the voter list and the date of acquiring citizenship do not match. He says that if the name was registered in the voter list of 1980, then it is necessary to find out on the basis of which document the name was included then. The court will now decide whether orders should be given to register an FIR in this case or not.
What is the matter?
It has been said in the revision petition that Sonia Gandhi’s name was first recorded in the voter list in 1980. Whereas he got Indian citizenship in 1983. The petitioner claims that this difference demands investigation. According to the petition, his name was removed from the voter list in 1982 and was included again in 1983.
The petitioner argues that if the name was included in 1980, then it is necessary to find out on the basis of which documents this process was completed. His argument is that this investigation is important to understand whether wrong information or wrong documents were used at any level.
Sonia Gandhi has been at the center of Indian politics for a long time. (File photo)
Why did the Magistrate Court reject the petition?
In September 2025, the Magistrate Court had rejected this petition. The court had said that interfering in voter list and election related matters would be a violation of Article 329 of the Constitution, because this area comes under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission and constitutional institutions.
The court had clearly said that starting such an investigation means entering those areas where the court should not interfere. Now a revision petition has been filed challenging this order.
Why did the demand for re-investigation arise?
It has been said in the revision petition that the matter is not only about the technical process of the voter list, but also about the clarity of the records. The petitioner says that-
- How did the name come into existence in 1980?
- When citizenship was granted in 1983, what documents were imposed?
- What were the reasons behind removing the name in 1982?
- Is testing of the entire process necessary?
The court has been requested to monitor the investigation and register an FIR on these questions.
What do legal experts say?
Many legal experts believe that this matter is related to both technical and constitutional aspects.
The voter list is a constitutional process and adding or removing names from it comes under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission. In such cases, the court usually intervenes only when there is a direct criminal aspect or a gross discrepancy is seen.
The hearing on December 9 is considered important because the court has to decide whether this matter is actually worthy of criminal investigation or it is a matter of jurisdiction of the Election Commission.
It has been said in the revision petition that Sonia Gandhi’s name was first recorded in the voter list in 1980. (file photo)
Why did the discussion increase in political circles?
Sonia Gandhi has been at the center of Indian politics for a long time. In such a situation, any legal matter related to them becomes the cause of big political debate. While the petitioners are calling it a question of transparency, the Congress may call it an unnecessary controversy. Before the hearing on December 9, the case is again in the headlines.
What next? Eye on December 9 hearing
Rouse Avenue Court will now see whether the Magistrate Court’s order was correct or there is a need for investigation. If the court orders registration of FIR, the case will proceed; If not, then this dispute can end here. Legal circles are keeping an eye on whether the court considers this a legal anomaly or a matter of constitutional process.
