The Delhi Court Sonia FIR case will receive its next ruling on August 13, 2026. The Rouse Avenue Court has reserved its order on a revision petition seeking an FIR and criminal investigation against former Congress President Sonia Gandhi.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne heard detailed arguments from both sides. The court also allowed the parties to submit additional written arguments by August 1, 2026.
Revision Petition Seeks Police Investigation
Vikas Tripathi filed the revision petition. He challenged an earlier order from an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM).
The ACJM had dismissed his complaint seeking a police investigation.
Tripathi alleges that Sonia Gandhi’s name appeared on the New Delhi electoral rolls in 1980. He claims that she acquired Indian citizenship only in April 1983.
The petitioner argues that the alleged electoral entry occurred before her citizenship.
Court Questions Scope of Proposed Investigation
During the hearing, Special Judge Vishal Gogne questioned the scope of the proposed police investigation.
The judge noted that the complainant had mainly presented information about the addition and deletion of a name from electoral records.
The court also noted the age of the allegations. The disputed events date back nearly five decades.
The judge questioned who authorities could investigate after such a long period.
The court has scheduled August 13, 2026, for the order.
Complainant’s Allegations
Senior Advocate Ajay Burman appeared for Vikas Tripathi. Advocate Neeraj also represented the revisionist.
The complainant relied on Election Commission records. He claimed that the records showed Sonia Gandhi’s name on the 1980 voter list.
According to the revisionist, officials removed the name in 1982. They allegedly added it again in 1983 after Gandhi acquired Indian citizenship.
Tripathi argues that non-citizens cannot legally appear on electoral rolls.
He claims that the alleged entry could have resulted from false declarations or forged documents.
Therefore, he seeks a direction to the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation.
Sonia Gandhi Opposes Criminal Investigation
Senior Advocate R. S. Cheema appeared for Sonia Gandhi. Advocate Tarannum Cheema also represented her.
The defence challenged the authenticity of the documents submitted by the revisionist.
It argued that the documents do not establish any prima facie criminal offence.
The defence also supported the ACJM’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
According to the defence, the revision petition seeks a “fishing and roving inquiry” into administrative records that are more than four decades old.
The defence therefore urged the court to dismiss the revision petition.
Key Issues Before the Court
| Issue | Revisionist’s Submission | Respondent’s Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Entry | The 1980 entry allegedly occurred before citizenship and may involve fraud or forgery. | The documents remain unverified and do not establish an offence. |
| Relief Sought | The court should direct the police to register an FIR and investigate. | The court should uphold the ACJM’s order and dismiss the plea. |
| Jurisdiction | A police investigation could reveal procedural lapses or misrepresentation. | Administrative electoral changes should not automatically become criminal proceedings. |
Why the Magistrate Dismissed the Complaint
The revision petition challenges the ACJM’s earlier order.
The Magistrate had refused to direct the police to register an FIR.
The court held that questions about electoral roll entries fall within the authority of the Election Commission of India.
It also held that the Central Government handles citizenship matters under Article 11 of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, 1955.
The Magistrate further noted that administrative errors do not automatically amount to criminal offences.
Historical changes to electoral rolls cannot, by themselves, establish cheating or forgery.
The complainant must provide concrete evidence of a criminal offence.
Delhi Court to Pronounce Order on August 13
The Delhi Court Sonia FIR proceedings now await the order of Special Judge Vishal Gogne.
The court will decide whether the revision petition justifies reversing the ACJM’s order.
It will also determine whether the allegations require a police investigation into the historical electoral records.
The court has reserved the final order for August 13, 2026.
