A magisterial court in Pune issued a significant directive on Tuesday concerning the high-profile defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court explicitly instructed Gandhi's legal representative to abstain from making any remarks about summons that have not been formally challenged in the ongoing proceedings.
Court's Stern Order on Legal Conduct
The case, initiated by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, stems from allegedly defamatory comments made by Rahul Gandhi during a speech in London. The recent court order came after Satyaki Savarkar filed an application objecting to specific paragraphs in a plea previously submitted by Gandhi's counsel, Milind Pawar.
In his application, Savarkar contended that the paragraphs in question were "serious in nature and mudslinging on the conduct of the complainant" and that they "cast some doubt on the functioning of the impartial judiciary system."
Magistrate's Detailed Observations
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amol Shriram Shinde, presided over the hearing and delivered a clear order. The magistrate noted that the accused, through paragraphs 11 and 13 of the exhibit, had raised doubts about the court's functioning. Specifically, it was stated that the complainant "managed to secure the order of issuance of summons" and "succeeded in obtaining the summoning order through overreach rather than through lawful proof."
Magistrate Shinde's order was unequivocal: "This court finds that if the accused has any grievances against the issuance of the summons order then he should challenge it before the appropriate court. But, he cannot make any comment on the order which he did not challenge. Either he has to accept the order or he has to challenge the order before the appropriate court." This directive firmly sets the boundaries for legal arguments in the case.
Adjournment Granted for Further Evidence
In a separate but related order, the same court rejected an application filed by Gandhi's lawyer, Milind Pawar, which sought to prevent any further adjournments in the case. The complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, has indicated his intention to present additional evidence.
The court emphasized the principle of a fair trial, stating, "He must be given an opportunity to lead his evidence. A fair trial should be there. Therefore, this court finds that a short adjournment can be granted to the complainant." Consequently, the court has scheduled the next hearing in this defamation case for December 5.
The proceedings are being closely watched as they involve a senior political figure and touch upon historical legacy, setting the stage for continued legal scrutiny in the coming weeks.
