SC Stays Defamation Case, Warns Rahul Gandhi on Savarkar Remarks

Supreme Court Stays Savarkar Defamation Case Against Rahul Gandhi , Issues Stern Warning

New Delhi - The Supreme Court on Friday, April 25, granted a stay on criminal defamation proceedings pending against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi in a Lucknow court concerning his remarks about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar . While granting the interim relief, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan orally expressed strong disapproval of Gandhi 's comments, particularly his description of Savarkar as a "servant of the British," and issued a stark warning against future statements deemed disrespectful to freedom fighters.

The case stems from a complaint filed by Advocate Nripendra Pandey following comments allegedly made by Rahul Gandhi during a press conference and a rally in Maharashtra's Akola district in November 2022, part of the Bharat Jodo Yatra. Gandhi is accused of stating that Savarkar was a "servant of the British" and took a pension from the colonial government. The complainant alleged that these statements were made with the intention of spreading hatred and enmity in society, leading to charges under sections including promoting enmity between different groups (Section 153A of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code, now Section 195 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and statements conducing to public mischief (Section 505 IPC/BNSS). A Lucknow Magistrate court had summoned Gandhi as an accused in December 2024 based on this complaint.

Gandhi had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court, on April 4, declined to quash the summons. The High Court had observed that Gandhi had the statutory remedy of filing a revision application before the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 438 BNSS), deeming it unnecessary to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Datta , speaking for the bench, immediately questioned the basis of Gandhi 's remarks. He drew parallels to historical context, asking Senior Advocate AM Singhvi , representing Gandhi , if using the term "your faithful servant" in correspondence with the Viceroy would render someone a servant of the British, referencing Mahatma Gandhi 's letters. Justice Datta further highlighted that even Judges of the Calcutta High Court used similar salutations during the British era.

"Does your client know Mahatma Gandhi also used 'your faithful servant' while addressing the Viceroy? Does your client know that his grandmother (Indira Gandhi ), when she was the Prime Minister, also sent a letter praising the gentleman ( Savarkar ), the freedom fighter?" Justice Datta pointedly asked Singhvi . He stressed that historical figures should not be treated with such disrespect, particularly without adequate knowledge of history.

Justice Datta underlined Gandhi 's stature as a prominent political leader and questioned the motive behind making such controversial statements, especially in Maharashtra, where Savarkar is widely revered. "He is a person of stature. He is a political leader of a political party. Why should you foment trouble like this? You go to Akola and make this statement, in Maharashtra where he ( Savarkar ) is worshipped? Don’t do this," Justice Datta remarked.

While the bench indicated its inclination to stay the proceedings, it proposed a condition that Gandhi would refrain from making similar statements in the future. Justice Datta delivered a stern warning, stating, "Let’s be clear, any further statement and we will take suo motu and no question of sanction! We will not allow you to speak anything about our freedom fighters. They have given us freedom, and this is how we treat them?"

Singhvi orally undertook before the court that Gandhi would not make such statements in the future. The Court proceeded to stay the criminal defamation proceedings pending before the Lucknow court and issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant, Nripendra Pandey . Notably, the condition regarding future conduct, while emphatically stated orally, was not included in the formal order issued by the bench.

The Supreme Court's observations underscore the judiciary's sensitivity regarding public discourse surrounding historical figures, particularly those recognized as freedom fighters. The bench's strong remarks suggest a view that political commentary should not cross a line into what is perceived as irresponsible or disrespectful toward individuals considered instrumental in India's independence movement. The potential for suo motu action mentioned by Justice Datta , although not binding as part of the formal order, serves as a significant cautionary note regarding the boundaries of political speech when discussing historical figures.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the potential for such speech to give rise to criminal charges like defamation, promoting enmity, or public mischief. For legal professionals, the proceeding raises questions about the scope of permissible historical commentary by public figures, the role of judicial observations versus formal orders, and the potential implications of broad warnings about future conduct issued by the apex court.

This is not the first instance of Rahul Gandhi facing legal challenges concerning his public statements. He was previously convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment in the 'Modi surname' defamation case, a conviction later stayed by the Supreme Court, leading to the restoration of his Lok Sabha membership. The Supreme Court had also previously stayed trial court proceedings in a separate defamation case against him concerning remarks made about Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

By staying the Lucknow proceedings, the Supreme Court has provided interim relief to Rahul Gandhi in this specific case. However, the accompanying oral dressing-down and the explicit warning about future statements on freedom fighters mark a significant moment in the legal and political landscape, signalling the judiciary's clear stance on the respect due to figures from the independence movement in public discourse. The matter will proceed as the Supreme Court examines the substantive issues raised in Gandhi 's challenge to the Allahabad High Court's order and the original summons.