In a recent judgment, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has denied interim relief to Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, in connection with his comments about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The court ruled that Gandhi should seek recourse through a revision petition at the sessions court level, deeming the high court’s intervention premature.
The case stems from Gandhi’s statements made on November 17, 2022, during the Bharat Jodo Yatra at a rally in Akola, Maharashtra. He was accused of making derogatory remarks against the late freedom fighter Savarkar, leading to charges of defamation.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the single bench passed the order on Friday, instructing that the matters raised were appropriate for consideration by the sessions court rather than the high court at this stage. The ruling came after Rahul Gandhi contested a lower court’s summons to appear in relation to the defamation allegations.
During the court proceedings, Gandhi’s attorney, Pranshu Agarwal, argued that the complaint against his client did not substantiate the offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code. He further highlighted that the lower court overlooked the requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates government sanction for prosecution of certain offences against the state.
Despite these arguments, Justice Vidyarthi refrained from commenting on the merits of the case itself, instead focusing on procedural aspects. Advocate Nripendra Pandey, who filed the complaint, claimed Gandhi’s remarks were part of a calculated attempt to malign Savarkar’s reputation, asserting that the comments were part of a broader conspiracy and were widely disseminated by the media.
The matter is slated to continue in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with the next hearing scheduled for April 14, where the focus will remain on the progression of the revision petition in the sessions court.
