Savarkar defamation case: Court to rule on admissibility of pen drives on Thursday
During an earlier hearing, the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, through his lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar, had produced two pen drives before the court, claiming they contained portions of a speech allegedly delivered by Gandhi in London, and sought permission to play them in court
The special MP-MLA court in Pune on Tuesday heard arguments in a defamation case filed against Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The matter was heard by Judge Amol Shinde.
During an earlier hearing, the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, through his lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar, had produced two pen drives before the court, claiming they contained portions of a speech allegedly delivered by Gandhi in London, and sought permission to play them in court.
The development followed an earlier instance in which a CD purportedly containing the same London speech, submitted by the complainant, was played in court but was found to be completely blank, displaying “no data”. The court thereafter directed the advocate representing the accused, Milind Dattatraya Pawar, to place his submissions on record regarding the admissibility of the two new pen drives.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Pawar opposed the inclusion of the pen drives in the court record. He objected to allegations made by the complainant through an application suggesting that the CD had turned blank and that one CD had gone missing. Pawar argued that such claims cast aspersions on the court proceedings and categorically denied the allegations.
During the arguments, the complainant submitted that the CD becoming blank and going missing was an “act of God”, a contention opposed by the defence. To ensure these submissions were formally recorded, Pawar filed a written pursis on behalf of the accused.
Pawar argued that the two pen drives constituted entirely new electronic evidence and that introducing such material at this stage of the proceedings was legally impermissible. He contended that neither the Information Technology Act nor the Indian Evidence Act permits the introduction of new electronic evidence in this manner.
He submitted that the defamation complaint had been filed without cogent or reliable material, alleging that it was politically motivated and intended to harass Gandhi. Pawar urged the court to reject the complainant’s application seeking to place the two pen drives on record.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the matter to December 18, when it will pronounce its order on the complainant’s application regarding the pen drives.
