Savarkar Defamation case: Lawyer Withdraws Plea Claiming 'Threat' To Rahul Gandhi, Says He Filed Without Consulting RG

A day after filing a Pursis highlighting the apprehension to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's safety, especially after he "exposed" the alleged "vote theft", his lawyer on Thursday withdrew the said Pursis, which was taken on record by the Special MP/MLA Court presently seized with the criminal defamation case filed against him over his comments against right-wing leader Vinayak Savarkar.

The lawyer Milind Pawar, had in the pursis highlighted how Gandhi has been termed a "terrorist" by BJP leader RN Bittu and also an open threat issued by another BJP leader Tarvinder Marwah, who had said Gandhi must "behave well else he may face the same fate like his grandmother."

Further, Pawar had highlighted the lineage of the complainant Satyaki in the instant case with the Savarkar and the (Nathuram) Godse families and how he can misuse his influence.

However, within hours of this Pursis being filed on Wednesday and reported by the media, Pawar issued a note stating that he had not consulted Gandhi before filing the instant Pursis.

When contacted, Pawar told Live Law, "I filed the present Pursis on my own as I am the lawyer in this case and know how the trial should run. I didn't consult my client on this. But now, I am instructed to withdraw the said Pursis and I will be withdrawing it tomorrow."

Therefore, today (Thursday) morning, Pawar filed an application before the special court urging it to permit him to withdraw the said Pursis.

"The court had initially taken my Pursis on record on Wednesday. However, today the court allowed me to withdraw the said Pursis," Pawar confirmed.

Notably, in the Pursis, Pawar while referring to Satyaki's lineage to the Savarkar and also the Godse families, the ones which were named in killing Mahatma Gandhi, said, "In light of the documented history of violent and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage, and considering the prevailing political climate, there exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting by persons subscribing to the ideology of Vinayak Savarkar."

Pursis said Gandhi has full faith in the independence of the judiciary but, it is imperative that the Court remain fully conscious of the forces, influences, and extraordinary circumstances surrounding him as the matter proceeds.

"The complainant himself has asserted descent from the associates of Mahatma Gandhi's assassins. In view of the grave history associated with such lineage, the Defence harbours a genuine and reasonable apprehension that history must not be permitted to repeat itself. It is also necessary to note that the ideology of Hindutva, followed by the complainant's ideological forebears, has in several instances assumed political power through unconstitutional means," the pursis stated.

The pursis further alleged that followers of such ideology have been known to spread animosity on caste and religious lines, manipulate electoral processes, and benefit certain industrialists at the expense of the poor.

"Gandhi, in his constitutional capacity as Leader of the Opposition, is standing against such policies and raising his voice for the poor and marginalised. Accordingly, it cannot be ruled out that caste-based extremists, politically motivated industrialists, Hindutva supporters, and those willing to subvert constitutional governance may harbour animosity towards the Accused," the plea further stated.

Therefore, it was claimed that there was a bona fide apprehension that the complainant may seek to derive undue advantage from the existing political circumstances, with an intent to exert influence upon the Court.