A Delhi Court today set aside a magisterial court order refusing to order FIR against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi for getting her name added in the electoral rolls of 1980, three years before getting Indian citizenship, allegedly by using forged documents.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Dwarka Courts said that the order was a complete non speaking order, lacking appropriate reasons.

The Court remanded the matter back to the ACJM Court, and directed that a speaking order be passed after hearing the parties, conducting an inquiry and hearing the police officer concerned.

The matter will be listed before the ACJM on September 29.

While pronouncing the order today, judge Gogne observed that law is ordained as the first love for any judicial order and that any order must not flirt with the facts.

The Court said that any allegation of tampering with or fraudulent inclusion of name of a voter or a non citizen in the electoral roll merits a reasoned order on whether allegations of forgery or cheating have been made out.

It added that there was no discussion in the impugned order on import of the sequence in which Gandhi's name was included or deleted or against included in the electoral rolls of 1980, 1982 and 1983, and as to why the complaint was dismissed entirely.

The judge said that there was complete non application of mind of ACJM who passed the non speaking order on the disclosure of any cognizable offence.

The Court concluded that the impugned order suffers from manifest error in law on account of not hearing the submissions of the concerned police officer and non calling of status report from the concerned police station.

It added that the impugned order became disabled due to its non speaking nature qua the factual allegations and that the ACJM's reasoning qua powers of Central Government qua citizenship and powers of ECI in relation to the electoral tolls were wholly improper and incorrect.

While setting aside the ACJM order, the Court clarified that it cannot step into the shoes of ACJM to consider prayer of registration of FIR under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

It said that such exercise can only be performed by the magistrate and a revisional court cannot assume the character of the judicial magistrate.

The Court accordingly remanded the matter back to ACJM for passing a speaking order after conducting inquiry.

The judge directed the ACJM to render a speaking order on the aspect of disclosure or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint against Gandhi.

The order has been passed by the criminal revision petition filed by Vikas Tripathi seeking criminal action against Gandhi. He challenged the ACMM order passed on September 11, 2025.

Senior Advocate Pavan Narang appeared for Tripathi.

It was Tripathi's case that Gandhi's name was included in the electoral rolls of the New Delhi constituency in 1980, whereas she got Indian citizenship in 1983.

It was his case that Gandhi's name was deleted from the electoral rolls in 1982 and re-entered in 1983. He alleged that the Congress leader used forged documents to get her name included in the electoral rolls, counsel demanded an FIR to be registered against her.

Vide the impugned order, the lower court had said that it cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India by entertaining plea seeking FIR against Gandhi.

It had said that mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by the essential particulars required to attract the statutory elements of cheating or forgery, cannot substitute a legally sustainable accusation as Tripathi was merely relying only upon extract of electoral roll which was a photocopy of the alleged extract of uncertified electoral roll of 1980.