Rahul Gandhi Opposes Plea Seeking Directive On Pune Police To Submit Fresh Report In Defamation Case Over Remarks Against Savarkar

In the ongoing defamation case over his remarks against right-wing ideologue Vinayak Savarkar, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday (September 10) opposed an application that sought a directive to the Pune Police to furnish a report, it initially awaited from YouTube USA with regards to the allegedly defamatory speech the Leader of Opposition Party (LOP) delivered against Savarkar. 

Notably, the complainant Satyaki Savarkar had last month filed an application urging the special MP/MLA court to direct the Pune Police to submit its report that it awaited from the YouTube USA. A further directive was sought to Gandhi against deletion of the speech he delivered in London, which he later uploaded on his YouTube Channel.

Responding to the said application, Gandhi through his lawyer Milind Pawar pointed out that the Pune Police, on orders of the special court had submitted a report on January 19, 2024, which comprised of the transcript of the speech, emails, a CD, statements of two witnesses and the case diary. This, Pawar argued, is the final report as based on this very report, the special court took cognisance of the complaint by Satyaki and then issued summons against Gandhi. 

Pawar further pointed out that in January 2024 itself, Satyaki, while submitting the material like CD, speech copy, newspaper cutouts etc, had told the special court that the information to be received from YouTube would be irrelevant and the said submission was even taken on record by the court.      

"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," the reply reads. 

Referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, Pawar submitted that the law is settled on the fact that a Magistrate cannot order police to submit a charge-sheet in a private complaint and also cannot order the police to keep filing fresh reports after taking cognisance of the plaint. 

"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," the reply states.

The scheme of the CrPC makes it clear that Section 202 does not contemplate a continuous or supplementary investigation like Section 173(8) and once the IO has submitted his report, his role in the 202 enquiry comes to an end. "After cognisance is taken, the responsibility lies upon the complainant to prove his case by leading evidence in accordance with law. Permitting the IO to keep filing fresh reports as and when he receives documents would amount to converting a limited enquiry under Section 202 into a full-fledged police investigation under Chapter XII, which is not sanctioned by law," Pawar pointed out. 

Pawar further submitted that since this is a criminal case and not a civil suit, the court has no power to issue an injunction restraining deletion of the YouTube video and thus urged the court to dismiss the said plea.

The matter has been adjourned for hearing on September 22. 

Background:

The defamation complaint asserts that Gandhi has repeatedly defamed Savarkar on various occasions over the years. One specific incident highlighted was on March 5, 2023, when Gandhi addressed the Overseas Congress in the United Kingdom.

The complainant - Satyaki Savarkar has claimed that Gandhi made intentionally wild allegations against Savarkar, knowing them to be untrue, with the intention of harming Savarkar's reputation and causing mental agony to the complainant and his family. The complaint states that the defamatory speech was delivered in England, but its impact was felt in Pune as it was published and circulated throughout India.

Satyaki, in her complaint, has submitted several news reports and a YouTube link to a video of Gandhi's speech in London as evidence. She has claimed that Gandhi falsely accused Savarkar of writing a book in which he described beating up a Muslim person, which Savarkar never wrote and such an incident never happened.

Satyaki argued that Gandhi made these false, malicious, and wild allegations with the specific objective of defaming Savarkar and harming his reputation.

The criminal defamation application filed by Satyaki demands maximum punishment for Gandhi under Section 500 (Punishment for defamation) of the IPC and seeks imposition of maximum compensation as per Section 357 (Order to pay compensation) of the CrPC.