In a significant development, a special MP/MLA court in Pune on Monday allowed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s application to convert the Vinayak Savarkar defamation case from a summary trial to a summons trial. This shift allows Gandhi to bring historical evidence on record and conduct detailed cross-examination of witnesses.
The order was passed by Judicial Magistrate Amol Shriram Shinde, who acknowledged the complexity of the case and the historical context raised by the accused.
“In the present case accused is claiming and raising questions of facts as well as law which are complex. The accused also raised certain issues which will be determined on historical facts. Therefore, in my view it is undesirable to try this case as a summary trial. Because in summary trial detail evidence and cross-examination is not taken,” the court observed.
“In this case, the accused has to lead detailed evidence and has to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant thoroughly,” the judge added.
BACKGROUND
The defamation complaint was filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grand-nephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, over remarks made by Gandhi during a speech in London in March 2023. Gandhi had allegedly cited a passage from Savarkar’s writings referencing an incident in which he and others assaulted a Muslim man—a situation Savarkar reportedly described as “pleasurable.”
Satyaki Savarkar refuted the claim, stating no such account exists in Savarkar’s writings, and filed a criminal defamation case under:
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment of up to two years imprisonment and/or fine for defamation.
Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Seeking maximum compensation.
LEGAL GROUNDS FOR TRIAL CONVERSION
The court held that since the accused’s defense is based on complex historical facts, a summons trial is appropriate to ensure justice is served.
Judge Shinde cited Section 260(2) of the CrPC, stating:
“Section 260(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides and facilitates the court that, even during trial it appears that, it is undesirable to try summarily, then Magistrate can re-hear the case.”
He added:
“Hence, it shall be incumbent in the interest of justice that, the matter should be tried as a summons case. No prejudice would be caused to any party, if the present case is tried as a summons case.”
The court also clarified that the offense under Section 500 IPC falls under the category of a summons case, as per Sections 2(x) and 2(w) of the CrPC.
REPRESENTATION
Advocate Milind Pawar appeared for Rahul Gandhi.
Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar represented Satyaki Savarkar.
