Court adjourns hearing in Savarkar defamation case till February 6

The complaint, filed by Satyaki Savarkar, has already seen the completion of the chief examination of the complainant. However, Gandhi’s counsel, advocate Milind Dattatray Pawar, moved a detailed objection alleging grave procedural lapses during the recording of evidence.

PUNE: The MP/MLA special court in Pune, which is hearing a defamation complaint against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his London speech on freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, on Tuesday adjourned the matter to February 6 after the defence raised serious objections over the manner in which evidence was recorded.

(Shutterstock)

The complaint, filed by Satyaki Savarkar, has already seen the completion of the chief examination of the complainant. However, Gandhi’s counsel, advocate Milind Dattatray Pawar, moved a detailed objection alleging grave procedural lapses during the recording of evidence.

The case pertains to remarks made by Gandhi during a speech in London, allegedly concerning Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

In his application, Pawar contended that the complainant introduced two pen drives and certain documents during evidence, despite no reference to these in the original complaint, and without prior disclosure or formal production on record. He argued that allowing such material at this stage was an attempt to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case and violated established legal procedure.

The defence further submitted that introducing new material without prior notice caused serious prejudice to the accused and infringed his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also alleged that the complainant made serious allegations against the court itself, and despite objections, the evidence was allowed to proceed.

Pawar clarified that the defence neither consented to nor waived any legal rights regarding the evidence. He emphasised that evidence must follow pleadings, and documents not included in the complaint cannot be introduced during the chief examination stage, especially when objections are raised timely.

“It is respectfully submitted that there is no provision under the Code which authorises the court to depart from the statutory procedure or to record evidence in a manner dictated by the whims or convenience of the complainant. Any such deviation is contrary to the procedure established by law and causes serious prejudice to the defence,” Pawar stated.

Following these objections, and at the request of the defence, the court adjourned the case for further cross-examination. The next hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2026.