New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday permitted the complainant to place additional documents on record in a criminal revision petition alleging fraudulent inclusion of Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson, Sonia Gandhi’s, name in electoral rolls before she acquired Indian citizenship.
The Rouse Avenue Court allowed the complainant’s request to file the additional documents and posted the matter for further hearing on November 18.
The revision petition, moved by advocate Vikas Tripathi, challenges the dismissal of a complaint seeking registration of an FIR into the alleged irregularities in the inclusion of Sonia Gandhi’s name in the electoral rolls on the basis of forged or fraudulent documents.
The complainant has claimed that her name was included in the voter list at a time when she had not acquired Indian citizenship. In an earlier hearing, the complainant’s counsel had sought permission to place on record certain documents received from the Election Commission of India (ECI), which was allowed by the court.
Meanwhile, Sonia Gandhi has opposed the revision petition, describing the allegations as “politically motivated”, baseless and founded on incorrect and misleading facts.
In her reply, she has contended that matters concerning citizenship fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central government, while issues relating to electoral rolls are entrusted to the Election Commission of India.
She has also argued that no credible documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of forgery or fraud and termed the proceedings an abuse of the legal process.
In December last year, Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Vishal Gogne, of the Rouse Avenue Court agreed to examine the revision plea and issued notice to Sonia Gandhi and the Delhi Police.
Earlier, the Magistrate Court had dismissed the complaint seeking registration of an FIR, holding that the judiciary could not undertake an enquiry that would result in encroachment upon areas expressly entrusted to constitutional authorities.
The Magistrate Court had also held that such intervention would be barred under Article 329 of the Constitution, which restricts judicial interference in electoral matters except through election petitions.
(IANS)
