Pune court rejects plea to compel Rahul Gandhi to submit book in Savarkar defamation case

Hindustan Times

4 days ago

The special member of Parliament – member of legislative assembly (MP-MLA) court on Thursday rejected an application seeking to compel Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to submit a copy of the book he was referring to during a speech in London on March 2, 2023, in which he allegedly made defamatory remarks about Hindutva icon, Veer Savarkar. The complaint alleged that Rahul Gandhi had made false and defamatory statements during his 2023 London speech, including a claim that Savarkar had written about enjoying assaulting a Muslim man in his book. (HT FILE)
'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The burden of proof lies entirely on the complainant. Hence, the application filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected,' judicial magistrate Amol Shinde said in the order pronounced in open court on July 3.
Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, appearing for Satyaki Savarkar – Veer Savarkar's grand-nephew who filed the defamation complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) last year – had argued that Gandhi's lawyer was deliberately delaying proceedings which are currently at the stage of recording the plea. Advocate Kolhatkar maintained that the book in question is essential to ensuring a fair trial.
In response, Gandhi's lawyer, advocate Milind Pawar, strongly opposed the plea, stating that the trial had not yet commenced and therefore Gandhi could not be compelled to disclose any part of his defence or supporting documents. Advocate Pawar argued that the burden of proof lies solely on the complainant and compelling the accused to produce material at this stage would violate the accused's constitutional protection under Article 20(3) which safeguards against self-incrimination.
Advocate Pawar submitted, 'The complainant is required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Forcing the defence to prematurely disclose material is not permitted under criminal law and violates constitutional guarantees.'
Advocate Pawar further argued, 'There is no legal obligation on the defence to provide any document or material to the complainant. Such a direction would seriously prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial and his ability to defend himself effectively.'
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court noted that the case is still at the stage of recording the accused's plea, and that it arises from a private complaint. The court held that the burden of proving the allegations lies entirely on the complainant.
The court observed: 'Gandhi cannot be compelled to disclose or submit any part of his defence before the trial formally begins. He is entitled to present relevant documents at the defence stage as per the law. Forcing the accused to produce material at this preliminary stage would infringe upon his constitutional protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects against compelled self-incrimination.'
The complaint alleged that Rahul Gandhi had made false and defamatory statements during his 2023 London speech, including a claim that Savarkar had written about enjoying assaulting a Muslim man in his book. Gandhi had earlier been exempted from appearing before the MP-MLA court presided over by magistrate Shinde and was granted bail on a bond of ₹25,000. He was also granted permanent exemption from personal court appearances, citing his public responsibilities and security considerations