Pune court rejects Satyaki Savarkar’s plea for restraint on Rahul Gandhi

The plea sought further data from YouTube and a restraining order preventing Gandhi from deleting an allegedly defamatory video

A Pune court, in its order on September 22, dismissed an application filed by Satyaki Savarkar, seeking additional directions in a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The plea sought further data from YouTube and a restraining order preventing Gandhi from deleting an allegedly defamatory video.

A Pune court, in its order on September 22, dismissed an application filed by Satyaki Savarkar, seeking additional directions in a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. (Hindustan Times)

Judicial Magistrate First Class Amol Shinde, who is hearing MP-MLA cases, ruled that once cognisance has been taken and process issued, no further inquiry or report can be sought under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Savarkar had requested the court to direct the Vishrambaug police to obtain details from YouTube, such as the IP address, profile information, and email ID of the account that uploaded the video. He also sought an order preventing Gandhi from removing the video, which Savarkar claims defames Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar.

However, the court upheld Gandhi’s legal objections, stating that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 is limited to the magistrate’s preliminary satisfaction before issuing process. Once that stage is complete, the court noted, no further reports can be sought to support the complainant’s case.

The court also noted that Savarkar had previously acknowledged that existing material, including newspaper clippings and a police verification report, was sufficient. It emphasised that it is now the complainant’s responsibility to present evidence during the trial to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regarding the request to restrain Gandhi from deleting the video, the court ruled that such an order would infringe on the accused’s personal liberty. It further observed that a CD containing the video and related material had already been submitted to the court and could be relied upon during the proceedings.

The application was, therefore, rejected in its entirety.