Is Priyanka Gandhi Right to Call Allegations Against Sonia Gandhi Completely False?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- Allegations against Sonia Gandhi involve electoral roll discrepancies.
- Priyanka Gandhi defends her mother-in-law, calling claims false.
- Delhi Court to review the case further on January 6, 2026.
- BJP leaders criticize Congress, citing this case as an example of electoral manipulation.
- Article 329 restricts court interference in electoral matters.
New Delhi, Dec 9 (NationPress) In response to the notice issued by the Delhi Rouse Avenue Court regarding Congress MP Sonia Gandhi, Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra questioned if there was any substantive evidence to back the allegations, asserting that the claims are entirely untrue.
While addressing the media outside Parliament, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra stated, "Do they possess any proof? This is utterly false. She exercised her voting rights only after she became a citizen. I fail to grasp why she is being targeted—she is nearing 80 years old and has dedicated her life to the service of the nation. At this stage in her life, they should allow her some peace."
Congress MP Imran Masood also condemned the situation, remarking, "They conjure up new dramas daily. Today marks her birthday; at least have some decency on this day. Why go to such lengths? Where are you steering the nation?"
Earlier, a Delhi Court agreed to review a criminal revision petition challenging the refusal to register an FIR against Sonia Gandhi over allegations that her name appeared in the voter list in 1980—three years prior to her becoming an Indian citizen.
Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts issued notices to Sonia Gandhi and the Delhi Police after senior advocate Pavan Narang claimed that documents "must have been forged, fabricated, and falsified" to add her name to the voter list.
The judge ordered that the revision petition be scheduled for further hearing on January 6, 2026.
This revision request, submitted by Vikas Tripathi, contested the September 11 order from Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia, which had rejected his complaint seeking an FIR regarding the alleged improper inclusion of Sonia Gandhi's name in the electoral roll.
Tripathi asserted that Sonia Gandhi's name was initially added to the electoral roll of the New Delhi constituency in 1980, even though she acquired Indian citizenship only in April 1983.
He noted that her name was removed in 1982 and subsequently reinstated in 1983 after she gained citizenship.
According to him, the inclusion in 1980 could not have occurred without the use of fraudulent documents, which would constitute a cognizable offense. However, Magistrate Chaurasia had declined to direct the police to file an FIR, stating that such an investigation would "result in unwarranted transgression into areas expressly assigned to the Constitutional authorities."
The Magistrate indicated that such an inquiry would violate Article 329 of the Constitution, which typically prohibits courts from interfering in electoral rolls and related matters except via election petitions.
Tripathi previously argued that the court should compel the police to investigate the alleged forgery, claiming that the wrongful inclusion of a non-citizen in the voter list constituted electoral fraud from its inception.
This issue has stirred political controversy, with BJP leaders accusing Congress of manipulating voter lists in the past and citing the Sonia Gandhi case as an instance of alleged irregularities. Conversely, the Congress has dismissed these allegations as baseless and retaliatory.