Defence Lawyer Files Formal Objection in Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case
In Pune, defence lawyer Milind Pawar submitted a written objection before a special MP/MLA court on Tuesday. He objected to the court's decision to allow new material as evidence without including it in the original case record. This objection concerns an ongoing defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
Background of the Defamation Case
Satyaki Savarkar filed this defamation case. He is the grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case relates to Rahul Gandhi's alleged defamatory speech against the Hindutva icon. Gandhi delivered this speech in London during March 2023.
The court has already completed recording Satyaki's chief examination. Currently, the case is at the cross-examination stage. The defence lawyer will conduct this cross-examination. The next hearing is scheduled for February 6.
Issues with Electronic Evidence
Earlier, Satyaki submitted a CD containing the alleged defamatory speech. He also provided a verification certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, technical problems prevented the court from playing this CD.
During a subsequent hearing, Satyaki presented two pen drives. He submitted another verification certificate with them. The court permitted playing these pen drives. Defence lawyer Milind Pawar raised an oral objection at that time. The court overruled his objection. It cited Satyaki's oral request as justification.
Written Objection Details
On Tuesday, Pawar filed a formal written objection before starting Satyaki's cross-examination. The objection states that overruling the earlier objection was illegal and procedurally irregular. It argues this action violates mandatory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The defence contends electronic evidence cannot be admitted, exhibited, or played without following proper legal procedures. The written objection emphasizes that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against permitting complainants to introduce new facts, documents, or electronic material during chief examination.
Such material was neither pleaded in the original complaint nor disclosed earlier. Introducing it would impermissibly expand the complaint's scope. It would amount to filling lacunae in the prosecution case. Most importantly, it would cause serious prejudice to the defence.
Court Adjourns Proceedings
After filing the written objection, advocate Pawar requested an adjournment. The court agreed and postponed the matter for further cross-examination. This development adds another layer of legal complexity to the high-profile defamation case.
The defence's written objection highlights fundamental principles of evidence law. It stresses the importance of procedural regularity in criminal cases. The court's response to this objection will significantly impact the case's trajectory.
