Sonia Gandhi Granted Extension to Respond to Electoral Roll Allegations

In a recent development, Sonia Gandhi has been granted an extension by a Delhi court to respond to allegations concerning her inclusion in the electoral rolls prior to her obtaining Indian citizenship in 1983. The court has set February 7 as the new deadline for her legal team to submit their response. The case revolves around a complaint that was previously dismissed by a magistrate, who found the allegations legally untenable. This situation raises questions about the legal processes involved and the implications for Gandhi's political career. Stay tuned for further updates on this unfolding legal matter.
 | 
Sonia Gandhi Granted Extension to Respond to Electoral Roll Allegations

Court Grants Extension for Response


New Delhi: A Delhi court has allowed Congress leader Sonia Gandhi until February 7 to submit her response regarding a petition that questions her inclusion in the electoral rolls prior to her obtaining Indian citizenship in 1983.


On December 9, Judge Gogne had issued a notice to Gandhi and the Delhi Police, requesting their responses to the allegations.


During the hearing on Tuesday, Gandhi's legal representative requested additional time to prepare the response, which the court granted, setting the next hearing for February 7.


The complaint, filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, who serves as the vice president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association, was previously dismissed by a magistrate on September 11.


The court stated that the complaint was constructed to improperly confer jurisdiction upon the court through legally unsound allegations.


Tripathi's counsel, senior advocate Pavan Narang, claimed that Gandhi's name was added to the New Delhi voter list in January 1980, despite her not being an Indian citizen at that time.


He alleged instances of forgery and that a public authority had been deceived.


However, the magistrate dismissed the request for an investigation, asserting that the complainant was attempting to invoke criminal law without proper legal grounds.


The magistrate noted that vague assertions lacking necessary details cannot form a valid legal accusation.


The complaint relied solely on a photocopy of an electoral roll extract from 1980, which was deemed insufficient.


The magistrate criticized the complaint, stating that it misused legal processes by framing a civil matter as a criminal one to create jurisdiction where it did not exist.