A court in Pune, Maharashtra, has asked Leader of Opposition and Congress Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi to appear before it on May 9 and record his plea in a criminal defamation case filed against him for his remarks about the late Hindu Mahasabha leader and Hindutva ideologue, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

The case proceedings are related to a complaint filed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s grandnephew, Satyaki Savarkar, who has alleged that Rahul Gandhi made defamatory comments about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar during a speech in London in March 2023.

Advertisement

Allegedly, Rahul Gandhi referred to a passage in Savarkar’s writings, which described an incident in which a group, including Savarkar, assaulted a Muslim, which Gandhi claimed was described by Savarkar as “pleasurable”.

“They (Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his friends) beat up a Muslim and felt happy. If five people beat up one person and someone is getting happy, then this is cowardice. Fifteen people with Savarkar beat up one person. This is also their ideology,” Rahul Gandhi had allegedly stated.

However, the complainant Satyaki Savarkar, who is a resident of Pune, stated in his petition that Savarkar never wrote in any book mentioning what Rahul Gandhi allegedly said. Based on this, a criminal defamation case was filed against Rahul Gandhi in the Pune court. Satyaki Savarkar has sought maximum punishment for Gandhi under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal defamation, along with the maximum permissible compensation under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Earlier this April, Judicial Magistrate Amol Shriram Shinde allowed Gandhi’s application to convert the proceedings from a summary trial to a summons trial, enabling the defence to present historical and documentary evidence, which are procedural advantages not typically available in a summary trial format.

The request was allowed as Rahul Gandhi had claimed that his statements were based on historical facts.

The Pune court has now directed Gandhi to remain present for the next hearing on May 9, in order to formally record his statement.

On Friday, the Supreme Court had pulled up Rahul Gandhi in another case filed against him in Uttar Pradesh about remarks made about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar during the Bharat Jodo Yatra.

The Supreme Court had taken strong exception to Rahul Gandhi’s statement that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was a collaborator of the British and received pension from the British.

Rahul Gandhi faces charges before a Lucknow magistrate court under Sections 153A (for promoting enmity) and Section 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for his remarks against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Later, Rahul Gandhi moved the Supreme Court to quash the summons issued to him by the Lucknow magistrate’s court.

The Supreme Court stayed the summons issued to Rahul Gandhi by the Lucknow magistrate’s court, but said that his statements against Vinayak Savarkar were “irresponsible” and that the court would initiate suo motu action if he made similar statements again.

The Supreme Court had warned Rahul Gandhi not to make controversial remarks against freedom fighters in the future, or else he would have to “face the consequences”.

“Does Rahul Gandhi know that his grandmother and former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had written a letter praising Vinayak Damodar Savarkar?” the Supreme Court had stated, while warning Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan expressed disapproval about the remarks made by Rahul Gandhi against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Justice Datta also asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, if Mahatma Gandhi could be called the servant of the Britishers merely because he used the term “your faithful servant” in his letters to the Viceroy.

“Does your client know Mahatma Gandhi also used ‘your faithful servant’ while addressing the Viceroy? Does your client know that his grandmother, when she was the Prime Minister, also sent a letter to somebody praising the gentleman (Savarkar)?” Justice Datta asked Singhvi.

“You cannot make such statements without knowing the history and geography of freedom fighters. Let him not make irresponsible statements about the freedom fighters. Is this the way you treat freedom fighters?” Justice Datta asked and said that Savarkar is worshipped in Maharashtra.

Justice Datta further said, “Let’s be clear, any further statement and we will take suo motu action, and no question of sanction. We will not allow you to speak about freedom fighters. They have given us freedom.”