SC slams Rahul over remarks on Savarkar

The Supreme Court on Friday criticised Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for comments against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar while granting a stay on summons issued by a Lucknow court.

“Let him not make any statements on freedom fighters without knowing any history or geography about it,” remarked a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, hearing Gandhi’s petition challenging an April 4 Allahabad HC order.

The High Court had refused to quash summons issued by a Lucknow court in a complaint by advocate Nripendra Pandey, who alleged Gandhi’s statements during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in November 2022 amounted to promoting enmity and public mischief.

Gandhi had at the time called Savarkar a “servant” of the British Raj.

The bench questioned Gandhi’s knowledge of history, asking, “Does your client know that his grandmother, when she was the Prime Minister, wrote a letter praising this gentleman? Does he know that Mahatma Gandhi also used ‘your faithful servant’ while addressing the Viceroy?”

Noting that Gandhi made the statements when his rally reached Akola in Maharashtra, the court observed, “In Akola, he is worshipped as a God. Do not do this.”

“This is not the way you treat freedom fighters,” the bench added, urging for an undertaking that the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha would not make further statements about freedom fighters. “One does not become a servant just like that. One day you will say that Gandhiji was also a servant of the British.”

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, sought to address legal aspects for staying the HC order.

Singhvi pointed out that the HC order must be stayed as the judge failed to consider that the summoning order required mandatory sanction under section 196(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision states that “no court shall take cognisance of any offence...under section 153A, section 295A or section 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code...except with the previous sanction of the central government or of the state government or of the district magistrate.” 

The complaint against Gandhi sought to prosecute him for promoting enmity (section 153A) and public mischief (section 505) of IPC. Singhvi stated that the ingredients of the offence in the complaint were vague and not made out. 

The court issued notice on the petition and granted stay but warned: “You have made a good point on law and you are entitled to stay... But he is a political leader. Why should he make such statements?”

Singhvi assured the court that such statements would not be made, rendering a formal undertaking unnecessary. The bench cautioned that if any further statements were made, they would take up the matter suo motu. “We will not allow anybody to make any statement against freedom fighters. They have given us freedom,” the court declared.

The present case, which relates to complaint filed in Uttar Pradesh, is separate from another case in Maharashtra, where on Friday, the counsel representing VD Savarkar’s great grandnephew Satyaki submitted a copy of Mazi Janmathep, Savarkar’s autobiographical account of his time in prison, along with a pendrive containing transcripts and newspaper cutouts, as previously requested by Gandhi’s lawyer Milind Pawar. The court also accepted Pawar’s plea seeking a copy of “Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?”, Savarkar’s 1923 book that laid the foundation of Hindutva ideology. The complainant’s side agreed to furnish the book as evidence.

Pawar, in his written submission, argued that Savarkar had endorsed the two-nation theory during his 1937 presidential address in Ahmedabad, stating that “there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India.” He also maintained that under Savarkar’s leadership, Hindu Mahasabha propagated the concept of India as a Hindu Rashtra.

The case stems from Gandhi’s alleged remarks during a public event in London on March 5, 2023, where he invoked Savarkar while referring to an incident of communal violence. According to the complaint, Gandhi claimed that Savarkar, along with five to six friends, had beaten up a Muslim man — an incident he allegedly described as cowardly.

These remarks prompted Savarkar’s great-grandnephew, Satyaki Savarkar, to file a criminal defamation complaint under Section 500 of the IPC. Satyaki is the grandson of Narayan Damodar Savarkar, Savarkar’s younger brother.

The trial is now proceeding in a summons format — a shift from the earlier summary trial — permitting a detailed cross-examination and submission of documentary evidence, making it a more exhaustive legal process

In the UP case, the Allahabad HC had previously dismissed Gandhi’s plea, with Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noting alternative remedies existed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now replaced by section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court had observed that the inherent powers under section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings “are meant to be invoked to secure the ends of justice” but are discretionary and not normally invoked when statutory remedies are available.

Pandey’s complaint stated that Gandhi’s remarks, calling Savarkar a “servant of the British” who received a pension from the colonial power, insulted a “great and fearless nationalist leader” and hurt community sentiments. The trial court, in its summoning order, had observed that Gandhi had spread hatred and ill-will in society through his speech. The complaint seeks prosecution under sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court had imposed a ₹200 fine on Gandhi last month for non-appearance. The initial complaint against Gandhi was dismissed in June 2023 but revived through a revision petition, resulting in summons issued on December 12.

In his appeal before the top court, Gandhi said, “The freedom of expression is essential for a dignified life, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.” Referring to the proceedings against him as “frivolous”, “vexatious” and designed to inflict the criminal process as a “virtual punishment”, the appeal said that such a proceeding acts as a deterrent to the petitioner from “freely exercising his duty as a responsible opposition political leader at the national level.” 

(With inputs from Nadeem Inamdar)