The complainant in a defamation case against Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has objected to his request to present historical facts and evidence to support his statements on Hindutva leader V.D. Savarkar.

Satyaki Ashok Savarkar, a relative of V.D. Savarkar and the petitioner in the case, opposed Gandhi’s plea to change the nature of the trial from a summary trial to a summons trial.

According to a report by Bar and Bench, Satyaki Savarkar argued in his affidavit that Gandhi was attempting to “divert the matter” by raising “irrelevant arguments” about Savarkar’s role in the freedom struggle.

The case stems from a speech Gandhi delivered in London in March 2023, where he allegedly cited an incident from Savarkar’s writings, claiming that Savarkar and others had assaulted a Muslim man—a situation he reportedly found "pleasurable." 

The complainant maintains that no such account exists in Savarkar’s works and has called Gandhi’s statements defamatory.

Recently, Gandhi sought to change the nature of the trial to a summons trial, stating that it would allow him to present historical facts and detailed evidence in his defence.

However, in an affidavit filed through advocate S.A. Kolhatkar, Savarkar strongly opposed the request, accusing Gandhi of attempting to divert attention from the case.

“The accused is again deliberately trying to divert the matter by raising irrelevant arguments about Veer Savarkar’s contributions during the Indian freedom struggle. The accused has raised issues regarding certain historical facts, which are irrelevant to the core subject matter of this case,” the affidavit states, Bar and Bench reported.

Savarkar’s legal team argued that the case does not involve complex legal or factual questions, as claimed by Gandhi, and emphasized that the accused cannot dictate how the court should conduct the trial.

The affidavit also pointed to Gandhi’s history of making allegedly defamatory remarks, referencing his previous conviction in a defamation case in Gujarat, which led to his temporary disqualification from the Lok Sabha.

"Rahul Gandhi, has a documented history of making defamatory remarks...it can be inferred that he is a habitual offender making defamatory statements,” the response alleges.

Additionally, Savarkar’s counsel dismissed Gandhi’s reliance on historical references as a justification for his statements, calling it a delay tactic.

The complainant has urged the court to reject Gandhi’s plea and allow the trial to proceed without further delays.

Earlier this month, the Pune court hearing the case granted Gandhi a permanent exemption from appearing in person.

His counsel cited security concerns, noting that Pune was the hometown of Nathuram Godse and highlighting the assassinations of his father and grandfather by "bad elements" in society.

The Pune court is set to hear the matter next on March 19.