A Delhi court on Tuesday granted Congress leader Sonia Gandhi time to file a reply to a revision petition challenging an earlier dismissal of a complaint over her inclusion in the electoral rolls, extending proceedings in a matter that turns on questions of citizenship and voter registration procedures.The revision petition arises from a complaint filed by Vikas Tripathi, who has alleged that Sonia Gandhi’s name was included in the voter list before she acquired citizenship. The complaint was earlier rejected by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, prompting the complainant to move the higher court seeking a review of that decision.
The case is being heard at the Rouse Avenue court, which deals with cases involving legislators and politically sensitive matters. On Tuesday, Special Judge Vishal Gogne considered a request from Gandhi’s counsel seeking additional time to respond to the revision plea.
Senior advocate R S Cheema, appearing on behalf of Sonia Gandhi, told the court that the material on record dates back several decades and required careful examination before a response could be filed. He submitted that the age of the documents and the nature of the allegations made it necessary to seek more time to prepare a detailed reply.
Accepting the submission, the court granted time to file the response and listed the matter for further hearing on February 7. The order effectively pauses substantive arguments on the revision petition until the reply is placed on record.
The complainant’s core allegation is that Sonia Gandhi’s name appeared on the electoral rolls at a time when, according to him, she had not yet become a citizen, rendering her inclusion invalid under election law. This contention was examined at the magistrate level, where the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found no grounds to proceed with the complaint and dismissed it.
The revision petition before the special court seeks to overturn that dismissal, arguing that the lower court failed to adequately consider the factual and legal issues raised. The complainant has maintained that voter list integrity is a matter of public interest and that any alleged irregularity, particularly involving a prominent political figure, warrants judicial scrutiny.
Sonia Gandhi, a former Congress president and one of the most recognisable figures in national politics, has not personally appeared in court in connection with the matter. Her legal team has consistently maintained that the allegations are without merit and rooted in events that occurred decades ago, during a period when records were maintained under different administrative practices.
Court proceedings on Tuesday were procedural rather than substantive, focusing on timelines and the filing of pleadings rather than on the merits of the allegations. Legal observers note that revision petitions of this nature often hinge on whether there has been a legal or procedural error in the earlier order, rather than on a fresh examination of facts.
The special court’s decision to grant time reflects a routine judicial approach in cases involving voluminous or old records, particularly when the accused seeks an opportunity to place a comprehensive response on file. Such extensions are common where courts consider that denying time could prejudice a party’s right to be heard.
The voter list issue has surfaced periodically in public discourse, often intersecting with broader debates about electoral roll accuracy, citizenship documentation, and administrative oversight. Election law specialists point out that challenges to voter registration typically require clear evidence of illegality or procedural violation to succeed, especially at the revision stage.