New Delhi, Feb. 8 -- Congress parliamentary party leader Sonia Gandhi on Saturday informed a Delhi court that the complaint alleging her inclusion in the electoral rolls before she became an Indian citizen was "politically motivated", and lacked documentary evidence to show any manipulation and forgery on her end. Gandhi, through her advocates Tarannum Cheema and Kanishka Singh, filed a six-page response before special judge of the Rouse Avenue Courts, Vishal Gogne, who is presiding over a revision petition moved by one Vikas Tripathi. The petitioner is challenging an order passed on September 11 last year by a magisterial court, which dismissed his complaint after holding that the accusations against Gandhi lacked substance and abused the process of law. While junking the plea which sought directions for investigation, the magistrate had pointed to the lack of any cogent evidence against the Congress leader proving she forged papers to enrol herself as a voter. The court also stated that the issue went beyond the court's jurisdiction as it involved issues which pertained to the central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI). Represented through senior advocate Pawan Narang and advocate Himanshu Sethi, Pathak had filed a complaint claiming that while Sonia Gandhi took Indian citizenship on April 30, 1983, her name was enrolled as a voter in the electoral list three years before, in 1980. The complaint alleged that Gandhi's name was deleted in 1982 and re-entered again in the poll rolls on January 1st, 1983. The complaint claimed that forgery was undertaken by the leader in her citizenship documents, which constituted a cognisable offence under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Representation of People Act, 1950. In her reply, Gandhi stated that the revision plea was "wholly misconceived" and "politically motivated", filed through the complainant to "abuse the process of law". She said that the magistrate's court had rightly observed that matters of citizenship fell exclusively under the Centre's domain, while electoral roll disputes were the sole prerogative of ECI. The reply said, "Criminal courts cannot usurp these functions by entertaining private complaints disguised under IPC/BNSS sections. This is barred by the doctrine of separation of powers and would violate Article 329 of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial interference in the electoral process". Gandhi pointed out that the complainant has claimed that there was an outcry from the general public in 1982, resulting in her name being deleted from the electoral roll. "It is intriguing how after 43 years of the so-called outcry of general public/media, the complainant records a fact in a criminal complaint supposedly on his direct knowledge," her response said. During Saturday's hearing, her counsel said that the complainant had relied on an "investigative report" in a national daily to discover the date on which Gandhi applied for Indian citizenship and was granted the same, without verifying its authenticity. The court posted the matter for February 21, when oral arguments on the plea will proceed....