Satyaki Savarkar told a Pune court that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s mercy petitions to the British government did not affect the “Veer” title given by the public. The statement came during a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over remarks made in London in 2023.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s mercy petitions submitted to the British colonial government during his imprisonment did not undermine the “Veer” (brave) title given to him by the public, his grandnephew Satyaki Savarkar told a Pune court during proceedings in a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The submission was made during the hearing of a criminal defamation complaint filed by Satyaki Savarkar against Gandhi. The case relates to remarks allegedly made by Rahul Gandhi during a speech in London in March 2023, where he referred to Savarkar’s writings and made claims about an alleged incident involving Savarkar and a Muslim man.
Satyaki has argued that no such episode is mentioned in Savarkar’s published writings and has accused Gandhi of making statements that were factually incorrect, misleading, and damaging to Savarkar’s reputation. The complaint seeks Gandhi’s conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal defamation along with compensation.
During the June 15 hearing, Gandhi’s lawyer Advocate Milind Pawar questioned Satyaki about the origin of the title “Veer” attached to Savarkar’s name. The lawyer referred to Savarkar’s multiple mercy petitions submitted to British authorities while he was imprisoned during the colonial period.
Responding to the questions, Satyaki said that historical records from the British era and publications linked to the revolutionary group Gadar organisation showed that Savarkar was referred to as “Veer” even during his imprisonment in the Andaman Islands.
Satyaki acknowledged that Savarkar had submitted ten mercy petitions seeking reduction of his sentence. However, he rejected the argument that filing such petitions was inconsistent with the title of “Veer”.
He explained that titles such as “Veer”, “Swatantryaveer”, “Mahatma” and “Netaji” were public descriptions given by people to individuals they considered to have made significant contributions, and were not official legal titles granted through any formal process.
During the cross-examination, Advocate Pawar also raised the example of revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt, who did not seek similar concessions from the British authorities. Satyaki said he could not comment on whether their refusal to seek such relief was connected to their eventual execution.
According to court records, Satyaki stated:
“I was unaware that Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt had petitioned the British government, demanding to be treated as prisoners of war and refusing any concessions or acts of leniency. It is true to say that Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt remained steadfast in their ideology and principles until the very end. The witness himself states that, much like Savarkar, they remained unyielding to the last.”
The defence also referred to parts of a 1913 mercy petition filed by Savarkar, where he described the difficult conditions of imprisonment, sought relief, and requested either transfer to an Indian prison or release under certain conditions.
The petition also contained a statement that Savarkar would follow a constitutional approach and remain loyal to the British government if released. Gandhi’s counsel relied on this language to question the portrayal of Savarkar as a fearless revolutionary.
Satyaki, however, argued that mercy petitions were a legally available remedy during British rule and that several prisoners used such procedures. According to him, submitting such petitions was neither unusual nor unlawful.
He further claimed that the language used in Savarkar’s mercy petitions followed the formal style required under colonial administrative procedures and that one of the petitions also sought relief for other prisoners who had been serving long sentences.
The cross-examination in the matter is continuing before Judicial Magistrate Amol Shinde, who will hear further evidence on July 1, 2026.
In an earlier hearing on June 1, Satyaki was questioned about his public activities related to Savarkar, including the “Har Ghar Savarkar” campaign. He denied that the defamation complaint was politically motivated or intended to pressure Rahul Gandhi.
He also accepted that there was no official government order or documentary record showing that the title “Swatantryaveer” was formally conferred upon Savarkar.
The Pune court is currently examining the evidence in the defamation case, with both sides presenting arguments regarding Savarkar’s historical legacy, public image, and the alleged statements made by Rahul Gandhi.
![[RG Kar Rape-Murder] Framed or Guilty? Sealdah Court Moves Forward with High-Profile Rape-Murder Trial](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/rgkar-e1574258658481-1-jpg-1723900570677_1723900570984-1200x675-1.jpg?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
