Congress leader Sonia Gandhi has opposed a criminal revision petition questioning her inclusion in the electoral rolls prior to acquiring Indian citizenship, seeking its dismissal in the Rouse Avenue Court. Her lawyers described the allegations as “wholly misconceived, frivolous, politically motivated, and an abuse of the process of law,” emphasizing that the petition is based on conjecture, stale references, and lacks any factual foundation.

Filed through advocates Tarannum Cheema, Kanishka Singh, Akash Singh, and Akshay Nagarajan, Gandhi’s response stated that the complainant relied on assumptions, old media reports, and personal presumptions rather than authentic records. It further highlighted that no specific document has been identified as forged or falsified, rendering the allegations legally untenable.

The reply also underscored that matters concerning citizenship are exclusively under the Central Government, while the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls fall under the Election Commission of India. Gandhi’s legal team argued that criminal courts cannot assume jurisdiction over such issues, as entertaining the complaint would amount to interference in the electoral process.

Also Read: CJI to Prashant Kishor: People Rejected You, Now Seeking Publicity in Court

Addressing specific claims, the response rejected allegations that her name was re-entered in the electoral roll using forged documents or that she cast a vote in the 1980 general election. Gandhi’s lawyers maintained that no authentic applications or supporting records were produced, and the claims relied solely on speculation and outdated reports from more than four decades ago.

The response also questioned the legal maintainability of the petition, noting that mandatory statutory requirements under the BNSS were not met, including proper filing of a valid affidavit. The petition, filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenged a September 2025 Magistrate Court order that had dismissed his initial complaint at the threshold, citing jurisdictional limitations.

Gandhi’s legal team concluded that the allegations were “stale, unsubstantiated, and devoid of essential particulars,” asserting that the petition should be dismissed. The case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of electoral and citizenship matters, but the response emphasizes that procedural and jurisdictional safeguards must be upheld to prevent misuse of the judicial process.

Also Read: Supreme Court Hears ED Plea Against Mamata Banerjee in I-PAC Raid Row