Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has formally opposed a criminal revision petition filed against her before the Rouse Avenue Court, asserting that the plea rests on incorrect, misleading and speculative assertions and amounts to a misuse of the judicial process. In a written reply submitted through counsel, Gandhi described the petition as wholly misconceived, frivolous and politically motivated, urging the court to dismiss it at the threshold.The matter arises from a challenge mounted by a private complainant seeking to revive proceedings against the senior opposition figure after an earlier order did not find sufficient grounds to proceed. The revision plea asks the court to reconsider that determination, contending that material facts were either ignored or improperly assessed. Gandhi’s response rejects that characterisation, arguing that the petition selectively quotes records and relies on conjecture rather than admissible evidence.
According to the filing, the defence contends that criminal revision is not intended to serve as a substitute for an appeal on facts, nor can it be used to reopen issues that have already been judicially examined. The reply maintains that the complainant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or perversity that would justify interference. It adds that the petition attempts to convert political disagreement into criminal liability without meeting the legal threshold required to sustain such proceedings.
Legal submissions in Gandhi’s reply emphasise that courts have repeatedly cautioned against permitting criminal law to be weaponised for collateral purposes. The filing states that the present plea reflects an effort to keep a criminal process alive despite the absence of foundational ingredients necessary to establish an offence. It argues that allowing such a revision would undermine procedural safeguards designed to prevent harassment through protracted litigation.
The case has attracted attention because of Gandhi’s stature and the broader political context in which complaints against senior leaders often surface. While the complainant maintains that the revision is aimed solely at correcting legal errors, the defence counters that the timing and tenor of the plea reveal an ulterior motive. The reply underscores that the criminal justice system must not be drawn into partisan contestation.
Procedurally, the Rouse Avenue Court has been designated to hear matters involving legislators, a framework intended to ensure expeditious handling while maintaining judicial rigour. The court’s role at the revision stage is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the order under challenge, not to conduct a fresh evaluation of evidence. Gandhi’s counsel argues that the petition oversteps these bounds by inviting a de novo appraisal.
The reply also addresses specific allegations cited by the complainant, stating that they are either unsupported by the record or based on assumptions presented as facts. It notes that speculative inferences cannot form the basis of criminal culpability and that the law requires clear, prima facie material before subjecting an individual to trial. On this basis, the defence submits that the revision plea fails the test of maintainability.
Observers note that courts have, over time, tightened scrutiny of revision petitions to prevent abuse, particularly in high-profile cases where litigation can become a tool for pressure. The defence filing aligns itself with this jurisprudence, contending that the present plea exemplifies the very mischief such safeguards are meant to address.