E-Paper
Satyaki Savarkar’s cross-examination deferred till April 8
The case arises from a complaint filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks during a speech in London
The cross-examination of complainant and witness Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case linked to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was partially conducted on Tuesday before the MP/MLA special court in Pune, and has been deferred till April 8.
The case arises from a complaint filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks during a speech in London. Defence counsel advocate Milind Pawar cross-examined the witness on documents, media reports and the basis of the complaint.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the defence questioned Savarkar on documentary and digital evidence submitted on record. He admitted that one of the newspaper documents was a photocopy. He also told the court that he had stored the video of the speech and digital copies of news reports on his mobile phone, and had relied on newspaper reports while filing the complaint.
Savarkar stated that he did not know which foreign journalists were present at the event mentioned in the complaint. He said he had not corresponded with the Parliament Secretariat to verify Rahul Gandhi’s status as a Member of Parliament at the time, though he had stated in the complaint that Gandhi was an MP based on his own verification.
He also admitted that he had not checked whether permission had been taken for the London visit and was unaware of the details of the police investigation into the event.
On media coverage, Savarkar said he could not recall which Indian news channel had reported the speech, but added he could identify the reporter after checking records. He confirmed that he had not contacted any journalist while filing the complaint and that no eyewitness to the event had been listed among his witnesses.
On questions related to historical discourse, the witness agreed that writers, historians and political leaders have expressed differing views on Savarkar’s ideology and legacy. He acknowledged that criticism and debate around Savarkar could form part of public discourse. However, he maintained that he did not take such viewpoints into account while filing the complaint, as he believed a false incident had been cited.
The court adjourned further cross-examination to April 8 following a request by the defence.
