Sonia Gandhi Electoral Roll Case: In a major setback to UPA Chairperson and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, a special court in Delhi on Monday set aside a magistrate's order declining a probe into the alleged inclusion of Sonia Gandhi in electoral rolls three years before she became a citizen of India.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne was hearing a revision plea against the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia on a complaint filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi. The complaint alleged that Sonia Gandhi's name was unlawfully included in the electoral roll of the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency in 1980, while she acquired Indian citizenship only in 1983.
It further alleged that her name was deleted from the electoral roll in 1982 and re-entered in 1983, even before she acquired Indian citizenship on April 30, 1983. The magistrate had rejected the complaint, observing that it was based on bald assertions without essential particulars of cheating and forgery.
However, Special Judge Gogne criticised the magistrate's approach and said the order failed to examine whether the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence properly. "An order of the court must maintain fidelity towards the law, and not flirt with facts. This court finds itself unravelling the impugned order rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) on this yardstick," he said.
The judge noted that the ACJM's order did not discuss the sequence in which Sonia Gandhi's name was allegedly included, deleted and then re-entered in the electoral roll in 1980, 1982 and 1983 respectively. Rather than determining whether the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence, the magistrate simply held that the complaint lacked essential particulars, the judge said.
"The sanctity of the electoral roll is an article of faith for every citizen in a parliamentary democracy. The mightiest in the land may only be a voter or citizen at par with others less powerful," the judge said.
"Any allegation of tampering with the electoral rolls, fraudulent inclusion of the name of a voter, inclusion of the name of a non-citizen, and possible use of false declarations or documents merits a reasoned order to determine whether allegations relating to cheating and forgery have been disclosed," he said.
The judge said the limited prayer before the ACJM was to consider whether the electoral roll extract and other allegations were sufficient to disclose an offence or whether a police investigation was required. "In effect, it is a non-speaking order on the question of disclosure of a cognisable offence," the judge said.
The court also found that the magistrate had not followed the procedure required under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). "The order suffers from a manifest error in law on account of non-compliance with Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), inter alia, not hearing the submissions of the concerned police officer and non-calling of a status report from the concerned police station," the judge said.
Section 175(3) of the BNSS empowers a magistrate to order a police investigation into a cognisable offence. "The non-speaking nature of the order was evident as the magistrate did not consider the twin options under law; directing registration of FIR or alternatively, conducting proceedings under BNSS," he added.
On the issue of Sonia Gandhi's citizenship, the judge said the ACJM was required only to determine whether the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence and whether they warranted a police investigation. Instead, the magistrate conflated the issue with the question of citizenship and moved towards an area falling within the jurisdiction of the Central government.
The court also questioned why the ACJM considered the Election Commission's powers to include or exclude names from electoral rolls to be a bar on the police investigating an allegedly fraudulent inclusion or the possible use of false documents.
"The court finds the four pillars of reasoning adopted in the impugned order to be perverse and improper, as well as an incorrect appreciation of law and allegations. In fact, the impugned order is liable to be set aside," the judge said.
The court accordingly set aside the magistrate's order and remanded the matter back to the magisterial court. It directed the magistrate to pass a speaking order after hearing the complainant's arguments afresh and in accordance with the requirements of Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 29.
(With PTI Inputs)