Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In a development in the ongoing criminal defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his comments on right-wing leader Vinayak Savarkar, a Special MP/MLA Court in Pune on Wednesday took on record a pursis filed by his advocate, highlighting the apprehension to Gandhi's safety, especially after he "exposed" the alleged "vote theft".

The lawyer Milind Pawar, has in the pursis highlighted how Gandhi has been termed a "terrorist" by BJP leader RN Bittu and also an open threat issued by another BJP leader Tarvinder Marwah, who had said Gandhi must "behave well else he may face the same fate like his grandmother."

Further, Pawar has highlighted the lineage of the complainant Satyaki in the instant case with the Savarkar and the Godse families and how he can misuse his influence.

"In light of the documented history of violent and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage, and considering the prevailing political climate, there exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting by persons subscribing to the ideology of Vinayak Savarkar," the pursis states.

Pursis said Gandhi has full faith in the independence of the judiciary but, it is imperative that the Court remain fully conscious of the forces, influences, and extraordinary circumstances surrounding him as the matter proceeds.

The pursis further alleges that followers of such ideology have been known to spread animosity on caste and religious lines, manipulate electoral processes, and benefit certain industrialists at the expense of the poor.

"Gandhi, in his constitutional capacity as Leader of the Opposition, is standing against such policies and raising his voice for the poor and marginalised. Accordingly, it cannot be ruled out that caste-based extremists, politically motivated industrialists, Hindutva supporters, and those willing to subvert constitutional governance may harbour animosity towards the Accused," the plea further reads.

Therefore, it is claimed that there is a bona fide apprehension that the complainant may seek to derive undue advantage from the existing political circumstances, with an intent to exert influence upon the Court.