The defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi initiated by Satyaki Ashok Savarkar, a relative of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, has taken a contentious turn. Satyaki has strongly opposed Gandhi’s plea to change the format of the trial to allow for the presentation of historical evidence. The case comes from Gandhi’s speech in London in March 2023, a focus of constant debate both legal and political.
The Origin of the Case
In March 2023, Gandhi was in London delivering some speeches wherein he allegedly made defamatory remarks about VD Savarkar. In his speeches, Gandhi supposedly brought forward an incident from Savarkar’s writings that showed Savarkar’s enjoyment level for the thorough caning of a Muslim man. Savarkar, the descendant, contested this and filed an FIR in April 2023, stating that the words of Gandhi were “fictitious, false, and malicious,” with the intention being that they would insult the reputation of Savarkar, himself and that of their family.
Satyaki has asserted that no such incident appears in any works documented by Savarkar and has accused Gandhi of falsely spreading information with ulterior political motives. The complaint is lodged under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prescribes punishment for defamation.
Rahul Gandhi’s Plea for Trial Conversion
In February 2025, Gandhi filed an application for his trial to be converted from a summary trial to a summons trial. A summary trial is one that is usually speedy and where cross-examination and evidence presentations are limited, reflecting a lesser serious nature of offense than the latter. On the other hand, in a summons trial, there can be detailed submissions of evidence alongside long and exhaustive cross-examinations.
Gandhi’s team argued that the case brought in complex legal and historical questions that could not be set aside without detailed scrutiny. By the introduction of historical records into evidence, they argued, the context for Gandhi’s remarks would be provided, and a fair trial accomplished. The lawyers further explained that justice demanded the right to examine Savarkar’s role in the freedom struggle comprehensively.
Complainant’s Opposition
Satyaki Savarkar, in his affidavit before the court, opposed Gandhi’s plea vehemently. Through his advocate, SA Kolhatkar, Satyaki submitted that Gandhi was trying to distract the court from an important issue of whether his statements were defamatory by propounding irrelevant historical debates.
Key Points Raised by Satyaki Savarkar:
- Irrelevance of Historical Evidence: The complainant insisted that, for the issues of this case, debates regarding Savarkar’s contributions to the freedom struggle had no bearing on whether Gandhi’s statements were of a defamatory nature.
- Accusation of Delay Tactics: Satyaki accused Gandhi of using historical arguments to betoken his whole intention to delay the trial because he had a substantial interest in avoiding it.
- Pattern of Defamatory Remarks: The affidavit provided an example of Gandhi’s mindset to make such controversial remarks, including his earlier, albeit overturned by the Supreme Court, conviction in 2023 by a Surat court for defaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Satyaki called this pattern of behavior by Gandhi into question.
- Focus on Defamation: The court was abundantly informed by the complainant that this case was not about what did happen in history. It is solely based upon whether Gandhi’s statement lowered the reputation of Savarkar.
Satyaki also sent in a plea to order Gandhi not to make any disparaging remarks against Savarkar publicly for the period of the proceedings.
Court Proceedings So Far
The Pune court hearing the case has already granted Rahul Gandhi a permanent exemption from personal appearance during day-to-day hearings as he was provided Z-plus Security and is the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha. The exemption was granted on January 10, 2025, with a Caress that Gandhi should not contend on his identification and should not dispute against any evidence recorded against him, in his absence.
Notwithstanding the logistical and security challenges of Gandhi appearing in court, Judge Amol Shinde asserted that he had to be present on the day that the judgment would be pronounced.
Legal Arguments from Both Sides
Rahul Gandhi’s Legal Team:
- Requested the trial court to convert the appeal into a summons case for further scrutiny, cross-examination, and the marking exhibit of evidence.
- Argued that some records must be produced and brought into the court for consideration so as to provide a certain historical context regarding Gandhi’s statements in question.
- Asserted that, for the hope of justice, the tricky issues of fact and law posed in the case were to be considered.
Satyaki Savarkar’s Counsel:
- Accused Gandhi of trying to divert attention from his defamatory statement by introducing irrelevant historical debates.
- Argued to amend details concerning the trial, which may lead to an unwanted delay.
- Pointed out that this case, as claimed by Gandhi, does not involve any complicated questions of law or fact.
Political Context
The defamation case has larger political ramifications owing to serious remarks that Rahul Gandhi has made against the Hindutva ideologues, such as VD Savarkar. Over the years, Congress leaders have often questioned Savarkar’s legacy, particularly his alleged clemency petitions submitted during British rule. This has drawn sharp criticism from BJP-aligned groups, which revere Savarkar as a nationalist icon.
Security Concerns Raised by Rahul Gandhi
During his brief disqualification from Parliament following his conviction in another defamation case in 2023, Rahul Gandhi said, “My name is not Savarkar; it is Gandhi, and Gandhi never offers an apology.” This statement only set the political stage for further aggravation between the Congress and BJP supporters.
In the application for permanent exemption from the court, Rahul Gandhi asserted substantially grave security concerns. His lawyers argued that Pune was the hometown of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, and cited earlier assassinations in his family—Indira Gandhi, who was his grandmother, and Rajiv Gandhi, his father—by “bad elements” of society. These were accepted as justifiable concerns by Judge Amol Shinde while exempting him.
Next Steps
On March 19, 2025, the Pune court will conduct a hearing to determine the fate of Rahul Gandhi’s application for converting the trial into a summons case or proceeding with it as a summary trial. The decision will have significant ramifications, not just for this case, but also for how courts would approach other defamation cases centering around historical as well as political figures.
Conclusion
The defamation case against Rahul Gandhi crystallizes the tangled intersection of law, history, and politics in contemporary India. While Satyaki Savarkar wishes for a speedy conclusion through existing legal processes, Rahul Gandhi wishes to employ historical context as part of his defense. This case, still attracting widespread attention on free speech, historical interpretation, and accountability in the political sphere, will continue as both sides prepare for their next courtroom bout.
About Author
Syeda Ayesha is a passionate 3rd year BBA LLB student at Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Law in Hyderabad, with a special interest in criminal law and family law. She has built her academic journey on a solid foundation of legal principles, progressing from basic to advanced levels, and is eager to apply this knowledge in practice. Determined to gain practical experience, she is committed to learning more about the law. Ayesha is excited about the opportunity to work in a dynamic legal environment, which she sees as a valuable avenue for both personal and professional growth.
