Satyaki Savarkar has asked the Pune court to summon Rahul Gandhi, questioning a withdrawn pursis that mentioned threats and Godse. He also sought directions to stop deletion of the alleged defamatory video.
Pune: Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, has filed a pursis before a Pune court asking for the personal presence of Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in the ongoing defamation case.
In his pursis, filed through advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, Satyaki Savarkar requested that the court should direct Rahul Gandhi to file an affidavit confirming whether the previous applications and pursis submitted in this matter were actually made with his instructions and knowledge.
He also asked the court to ensure that Gandhi clarifies the contents and pleas recorded on his behalf.
The pursis further said that Gandhi must be made to
“attest or countersign every application, pursis, and proceeding in the future to avoid miscarriage of justice.”
It also urged the court to issue
“a strict and stern warning that no application or pursis should be filed in court without the instructions of the Accused” so that “an incident similar to last month’s is not repeated.”
This demand came after an incident in August, when Gandhi’s lawyer Milind Pawar had filed a pursis in the Pune Magistrate court saying that Rahul Gandhi faced a life threat from right-wing groups.
That pursis created uproar, and later Pawar withdrew it, admitting that he had filed it “without instructions from his client.”
Advocate Kolhatkar, appearing for Savarkar, pointed out that in the withdrawn pursis, Gandhi had “deliberately mentioned the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi committed by Nathuram Godse,” adding that “Godse, along with others, was convicted according to law.”
Kolhatkar argued that this reference was “meaningless” and was “only aimed at assassinating the character of Satyaki Savarkar and his grand uncle Veer Savarkar.”
He also maintained that Gandhi’s earlier applications had carried the same kind of references. Kolhatkar submitted that,
“If the accused has made such references earlier, there is no justification for his sudden discontent with this particular pursis. By withdrawing it and shifting the entire blame upon his Advocate, the accused is attempting to make his own counsel a scapegoat.”
On the other hand, Pawar opposed Savarkar’s fresh pursis, arguing that Rahul Gandhi had already been granted permanent exemption from personal appearance by the court and therefore the demand for his presence was not maintainable.
Meanwhile, Satyaki Savarkar has also moved a separate application. In this plea, he asked the court to call for a report from Vishrambaug Police Station in Pune and also to pass an order preventing Rahul Gandhi from deleting or removing the alleged defamatory video until further orders of the court.
Advocate Pawar contested this plea strongly. He said the court, at this stage, had no power to summon a police report.
ALSO READ: 2012 Pune Blasts: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused After 12 Years in Jail
He further argued that since the case was a criminal matter and not a civil suit, the court could not grant an injunction to stop removal of the video. Pawar called Savarkar’s application
“misconceived, illegal, and not maintainable under the provisions of law.”
The matter is now scheduled to be heard further on September 22, 2025.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rahul Gandhi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
