Delhi Court Firmly Rejects Plea Challenging Sonia Gandhi's Electoral Roll Inclusion Before Citizenship

In a significant legal development, a Delhi court has unequivocally dismissed a petition that sought to challenge the long-standing inclusion of veteran politician Sonia Gandhi's name in the electoral rolls. The plea, which stirred fresh interest in a decades-old controversy, alleged that Gandhi was registered as a voter even before she acquired Indian citizenship, an assertion that the court found to be without merit.

The petition, brought forth by activist Surjit Singh Yadav, reignited discussions around events from the 1980s.

Yadav contended that Sonia Gandhi's name appeared on the electoral rolls in 1980, a full seven years prior to her obtaining Indian citizenship in 1989. His plea called for stringent action against the election officials who were responsible for her registration at that time.

However, the court, after careful consideration, found itself in agreement with previous higher court rulings on the subject.

Citing a crucial 2004 Delhi High Court judgment, the presiding judge underscored that the intricate issue of Gandhi's citizenship status and her subsequent electoral enrolment had already been firmly settled as a "non-issue" and a matter of "settled law." This previous ruling essentially closed the door on further legal challenges regarding this specific aspect of her political history.

The court further noted the petitioner's inability to present any fresh evidence or substantial new grounds that would warrant a reopening of a matter already exhaustively addressed by higher judicial bodies.

The judge pointed out that the current plea appeared to be a mere rehash of old allegations, conspicuously lacking any novel legal basis that would justify judicial intervention.

This latest judicial pronouncement serves to reinforce the consistent stance taken by Indian courts on the matter. It effectively puts an end to yet another attempt to legally question the validity of Sonia Gandhi's electoral past, reaffirming that the issue has been thoroughly scrutinised and resolved under the existing legal framework.

The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding established precedents and preventing the relitigation of issues that have already been settled by higher courts, ensuring stability and finality in legal proceedings.