The Crossbill News Desk
A researcher seeking to intervene in the ongoing defamation proceedings involving Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s grandnephew Satyaki Savarkar has moved the Bombay High Court after a Pune court rejected his intervention plea and imposed a Rs 20,000 penalty.
Pankaj Phadnis has now asked the high court to stay the proceedings before the special MP/MLA court in Pune. His latest application has been filed as part of an existing public interest litigation concerning the promotion of awareness about Savarkar.
According to a Live Law report, Phadnis has also asked the high court to reconsider his earlier contention that allegedly disrespectful references to Savarkar violate his “right to a meaningful life” under Article 19 of the Constitution. He has further sought the appointment of an amicus curiae in the defamation proceedings.
Phadnis’s intervention attempt came after statements made during the cross-examination of witnesses in the case filed by Satyaki Savarkar against Rahul Gandhi.
He has argued that the Pune court should restrict the evidence and cross-examination to matters relevant to the complaint and should not determine whether Savarkar was a “coward” or “brave”.
“I was shocked to see a newspaper report on June 15, 2026 that showed that the defamation case was proceeding on subjects that had nothing to do with the complaint filed by Satyaki against Gandhi. An individual’s contribution to freedom struggle and whether he was brave or not cannot be subject matter of judicial determination. That lies in the domain of the Parliament, which has already spoken on the subject by displaying his portrait in the Parliament by unanimous consent of all political parties including the Indian National Congress,” the plea reads.
The controversy surrounding the scope of the proceedings intensified after Satyaki, who is Savarkar’s grandnephew and Nathuram Godse’s great-nephew, made a series of statements during cross-examination.
In June, he told the Pune court that Savarkar had submitted 10 mercy petitions while in British custody, contrasting them with revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh.
Satyaki is being examined because he initiated the defamation proceedings against Gandhi over remarks allegedly made by the Congress leader about Savarkar. His cross-examination by Gandhi’s legal team began in January.
Another point that emerged during the proceedings was Satyaki’s acknowledgment that the “swatantryaveer” title had not been conferred on Savarkar by any government.
Following several such statements, Satyaki’s lawyers sought an early conclusion of the proceedings, arguing that the continuing cross-examination was causing their client “mental agony”.
Phadnis said reports of Satyaki’s statements prompted him to approach the Pune court seeking to intervene. Both Satyaki and Gandhi’s lawyers opposed his application. The special court subsequently rejected his attempt on August 17 and imposed the Rs 20,000 penalty.
Phadnis has now taken the matter to the Bombay High Court, seeking intervention in the proceedings as well as restrictions on the evidence being recorded before the Pune court.
His application is connected to an existing PIL in which he has sought directions concerning “creating awareness” about Savarkar. Phadnis has previously described Savarkar as “secular” and a believer in a heterogeneous India.
He had also approached the courts earlier, arguing that Gandhi was “violating fundamental duties” by making remarks about Savarkar. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition in 2025.
The Pune proceedings have meanwhile produced several politically sensitive historical claims.
On August 17, Satyaki told the court that Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse were active members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and that Nathuram Godse shot Mahatma Gandhi and was subsequently sentenced to death.
The defamation case was instituted after Gandhi allegedly referred to Savarkar’s writings about an incident in which he claimed to have found it “pleasurable” to assault a Muslim man.
What began as a defamation proceeding has since expanded into a wider courtroom examination of Savarkar’s historical record, including his mercy petitions, the origins of his “swatantryaveer” title and the actions of members of his extended family. Phadnis’s latest plea has now brought the question of how far that historical inquiry can extend before a criminal court before the Bombay High Court.
Pankaj Phadnis has now asked the high court to stay the proceedings before the special MP/MLA court in Pune. His latest application has been filed as part of an existing public interest litigation concerning the promotion of awareness about Savarkar.
According to a Live Law report, Phadnis has also asked the high court to reconsider his earlier contention that allegedly disrespectful references to Savarkar violate his “right to a meaningful life” under Article 19 of the Constitution. He has further sought the appointment of an amicus curiae in the defamation proceedings.
Phadnis’s intervention attempt came after statements made during the cross-examination of witnesses in the case filed by Satyaki Savarkar against Rahul Gandhi.
He has argued that the Pune court should restrict the evidence and cross-examination to matters relevant to the complaint and should not determine whether Savarkar was a “coward” or “brave”.
“I was shocked to see a newspaper report on June 15, 2026 that showed that the defamation case was proceeding on subjects that had nothing to do with the complaint filed by Satyaki against Gandhi. An individual’s contribution to freedom struggle and whether he was brave or not cannot be subject matter of judicial determination. That lies in the domain of the Parliament, which has already spoken on the subject by displaying his portrait in the Parliament by unanimous consent of all political parties including the Indian National Congress,” the plea reads.
The controversy surrounding the scope of the proceedings intensified after Satyaki, who is Savarkar’s grandnephew and Nathuram Godse’s great-nephew, made a series of statements during cross-examination.
In June, he told the Pune court that Savarkar had submitted 10 mercy petitions while in British custody, contrasting them with revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh.
Satyaki is being examined because he initiated the defamation proceedings against Gandhi over remarks allegedly made by the Congress leader about Savarkar. His cross-examination by Gandhi’s legal team began in January.
Another point that emerged during the proceedings was Satyaki’s acknowledgment that the “swatantryaveer” title had not been conferred on Savarkar by any government.
Following several such statements, Satyaki’s lawyers sought an early conclusion of the proceedings, arguing that the continuing cross-examination was causing their client “mental agony”.
Phadnis said reports of Satyaki’s statements prompted him to approach the Pune court seeking to intervene. Both Satyaki and Gandhi’s lawyers opposed his application. The special court subsequently rejected his attempt on August 17 and imposed the Rs 20,000 penalty.
Phadnis has now taken the matter to the Bombay High Court, seeking intervention in the proceedings as well as restrictions on the evidence being recorded before the Pune court.
His application is connected to an existing PIL in which he has sought directions concerning “creating awareness” about Savarkar. Phadnis has previously described Savarkar as “secular” and a believer in a heterogeneous India.
He had also approached the courts earlier, arguing that Gandhi was “violating fundamental duties” by making remarks about Savarkar. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition in 2025.
The Pune proceedings have meanwhile produced several politically sensitive historical claims.
On August 17, Satyaki told the court that Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse were active members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and that Nathuram Godse shot Mahatma Gandhi and was subsequently sentenced to death.
The defamation case was instituted after Gandhi allegedly referred to Savarkar’s writings about an incident in which he claimed to have found it “pleasurable” to assault a Muslim man.
What began as a defamation proceeding has since expanded into a wider courtroom examination of Savarkar’s historical record, including his mercy petitions, the origins of his “swatantryaveer” title and the actions of members of his extended family. Phadnis’s latest plea has now brought the question of how far that historical inquiry can extend before a criminal court before the Bombay High Court.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment