Here's why Delhi court refused to order FIR against Sonia Gandhi

Matters relating to the citizenship of a person are in the exclusive domain of the Central government, a Delhi court observed on Thursday while dismissing a plea seeking a first information report (FIR) against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. .The order was passed on a plea by one Vikas Tripathi who approached the Court for an investigation into alleged forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy and violation of the Representation of People Act, 1950 by Gandhi, which resulted in her name allegedly featuring in the electoral roll before she became a citizen of India. Tripathi alleged that Gandhi became a citizen of India only in 1983; yet her name was in the New Delhi constituency’s voter list in 1980. He contended that the Congress leader’s name was deleted in 1982 and reincluded in 1983. Therefore, he asked that Court to pass directions to book Gandhi for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and for violation of the Representation of People Act 1950 for false declaration. In a detailed order, Additional Chief Justice Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya reasoned that the authority to determine the eligibility of a person to be included in or excluded from the electoral roll rests with the Election Commission of India (ECI). “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,” Judge Chaurasiya underscored. .The Court said if it were to embark upon such an inquiry, it would result in unwarranted transgression into fields expressly entrusted to the constitutional authorities and would be a violation of Article 329 of Constitution of India. The judge said that complainant Vikas Tripathi was trying to invoke the criminal provisions relating to forgery and cheating to provide a “colour of jurisdiction” to the Court but the fundamental ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences were conspicuously lacking. “Mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by the essential particulars required to attract the statutory elements of cheating or forgery, cannot substitute a legally sustainable accusation… 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 said while rejecting the plea. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.