Court junks plea for probe against Sonia Gandhi on inclusion of her name in electoral roll

New Delhi | A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking probe against senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi alleging she was included in electoral rolls three years before acquiring Indian citizenship in 1983.

Observing the issue of citizenship squarely fell under the “exclusive constitutional and statutory mandate of the central government”, additional chief judicial magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia said, "Such a course, in substance, amounts to a misuse of the process of law by projecting a civil or ordinary dispute in the garb of criminality, solely to create a jurisdiction where none exists.”

The complaint, the court said, was "fashioned with the object of clothing the court with jurisdiction through allegations which are legally untenable, deficient in substance, and beyond the scope of this forum’s authority".

"Such a stratagem constitutes nothing but an abuse of the process of law, which this court cannot countenance," it added.

The complaint was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, vice president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association of the Rouse Avenue courts.

Tripathi’s counsel, senior advocate Pavan Narang, alleged in January 1980, Gandhi's name was added as a voter of the New Delhi constituency when she was not an Indian citizen.

He claimed "some forgery" and a public authority being "cheated".

The court, however, held the complainant sought to set the criminal law in motion by persuading the court to assume jurisdiction which did not vest in it legally.

"A scrutiny of the averments discloses that an endeavour has been made to invoke the provisions relating to the offences of cheating and forgery in order to provide a colour of jurisdiction before this forum. However, the fundamental ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences are conspicuously lacking."

The court observed "mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by the essential particulars required to attract the statutory elements of cheating or forgery" cannot substitute a legally sustainable accusation.

The plea was merely relying upon an extract of the electoral roll, which was "a photocopy of a photocopy of an alleged extract of an uncertified electoral roll" of 1980.

Deprecating the complaint, it said, "Such a course, in substance, amounts to a misuse of the process of law by projecting a civil or ordinary dispute in the garb of criminality, solely to create a jurisdiction where none exists."

The court underscored it was not empowered to adjudicate upon questions relating to citizenship, which were under the exclusive constitutional and statutory mandate of the Centre.

"Likewise, the authority to determine the eligibility of a person to be included in or excluded from the electoral roll and electoral offences thereof with predicate offence qua IPC/BNS is vested solely in the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Representation of People Act, 1951 and the allied enactments," the order said.

The judge said, "Any attempt by this court to embark upon such an inquiry would result in an unwarranted transgression into fields expressly entrusted to the competent constitutional authorities and would be a violation of Article 329 ( bar to interference by courts in electoral matters) of the Constitution."

The court said the private complaint could not be allowed to encroach upon the territory exclusively ordained for the Election Commission of India and the Central Government, as citizenship was the exclusive relationship between the sovereign state and its subjects.

"Whatever cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. Mere addition of predicate offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), with the mask of cognisability, will not justify any interference in the constitutional functionaries by this court," the order said.