In the ongoing criminal defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi opposed an application on September 10, 2025, seeking directions to the Pune Police to submit a pending report from YouTube USA regarding Gandhi’s allegedly defamatory speech. The application, filed last month by Satyaki in the special MP/MLA court in Pune, also requested an order restraining Gandhi from deleting the video of his London speech, which was later uploaded to his YouTube channel.
Gandhi’s lawyer, Milind Pawar, argued that the Pune Police had already submitted a comprehensive report on January 19, 2024, under Section 202 of the CrPC, including the speech transcript, emails, a CD, statements from two witnesses, and the case diary. This report formed the basis for the court’s cognizance of the complaint and issuance of summons to Gandhi. Pawar highlighted that in January 2024, Satyaki himself had submitted materials like the CD, speech copy, and newspaper clippings to the court, stating that any information from YouTube would be irrelevantāa submission recorded by the court.
The reply accused Satyaki of inconsistency and mala fide intent, stating: “It is wholly inconsistent and untenable for him to contend now that the technical report from the police authorities would serve as conclusive evidence against the accused. This contradiction clearly demonstrates that, with mala fide intentions and by employing pressure tactics, the complainant has sought to obtain orders from this Court.” Pawar invoked Supreme Court precedents, asserting that a magistrate cannot direct police to file a charge-sheet in a private complaint or seek fresh reports post-cognizance. He emphasized: “Once the Magistrate has taken cognisance on a report under Section 202 CrPC, he cannot again call for a fresh report from the IO (investigating officer) under Section 202. The enquiry stage ends with cognisance; the matter must proceed as a summons trial where complainant leads evidence. Calling fresh reports after cognizance would be illegal and not maintainable.”
Pawar further clarified that Section 202 does not allow continuous investigations like Section 173(8) CrPC, and post-cognizance, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove the case through evidence. Allowing supplementary reports would convert the limited enquiry into a full police investigation, which is unauthorized. On the injunction request, Pawar argued that criminal courts lack powers to issue such orders, akin to civil suits, and urged dismissal of the application.
The court adjourned the matter to September 22, 2025, for further hearing.
Background
The defamation complaint, filed in April 2023 under Section 500 IPC, stems from Gandhi’s March 5, 2023, speech at an Overseas Congress event in London, where he allegedly claimed Savarkar wrote about beating a Muslim man and deriving pleasure from itāan assertion Satyaki denies, calling it false and malicious. The speech, circulated widely in India, is said to have harmed Savarkar’s reputation and caused mental agony to Satyaki’s family. Evidence includes news reports and a YouTube link. Satyaki seeks maximum punishment under Section 500 IPC and compensation under Section 357 CrPC.
Gandhi was granted bail on January 10, 2025, with permanent exemption from personal appearance. He pleaded not guilty on July 11, 2025, via video conferencing. Recent developments include Gandhi withdrawing a threat perception plea filed without his consent on August 14, 2025, and filing a counter-defamation case against Satyaki on May 29, 2025, for allegedly misleading the court. A perjury application against Gandhi was filed on August 14, 2025, but the case remains focused on evidentiary disputes.
This case highlights tensions over historical figures in political discourse, with Gandhi’s remarks part of broader criticisms during his UK visit.
Lawcutor 