A Pune court has dismissed an intervention request by researcher Pankaj K Phadnis, who sought involvement in the ongoing private criminal defamation case initiated by Satyaki Savarkar against political leader Rahul Gandhi. The case, which revolves around remarks made by Gandhi about the late Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, saw Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Amol Shriram Shinde rule against Phadnis’s application on August 14, citing a lack of legal standing.
The court emphasized that Phadnis, not being a family member or close relative of the late Savarkar, could not claim the status of an aggrieved party under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The judge stated, “The intervenor who is not a family member or near relatives of late Savarkar cannot unilaterally assume unto himself the status of an aggrieved person under section 199 of Cr.P.C. to assert that his feelings were hurt and maintain the subject complaint against the accused for the alleged offence of defamation.”
In addition to rejecting the plea, the court imposed a ₹20,000 cost on Phadnis for what it deemed a misuse of judicial time, directing him to deposit the amount with the Pune District Legal Services Authority. The order noted, “The intervenor has consumed more and precious time of this court. Therefore, some costs need to be imposed on the intervenor. Considering the above discussions, the application of the intervenor is liable to be rejected.”
The defamation case was brought forward by Satyaki Savarkar following Gandhi’s address in the UK in March 2023, where he made statements concerning Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Phadnis argued his potential contribution to the case as an expert with over 25 years of research on Savarkar and authorship of multiple books on the topic.
Both Satyaki Savarkar and Rahul Gandhi opposed the intervention. Savarkar’s lawyer, Sangram Kothalkar, argued against the intervention, stating that criminal jurisprudence does not accommodate such a role in a private complaint. He suggested Phadnis was attempting to delay the trial and promote his publications. Similarly, Gandhi’s lawyer, Milind Pawar, argued that incorporating a third party would disrupt the trial’s scope and prejudice the ongoing cross-examination of Satyaki Savarkar. Pawar further asserted that Gandhi’s right to a fair trial should not be compromised by an “expanding target.”
More Read
The court agreed with these arguments, maintaining the original legal framework of the defamation case. The cross-examination of Satyaki Savarkar by Gandhi’s legal team is set to continue on August 17.
