Savarkar defamation case: High Court plea accuses court of trying to determine if Savarkar ‘brave or coward’

Savarkar defamation case: High Court plea accuses court of trying to determine if Savarkar 'brave or coward' The petitioner, claiming to possess expert knowledge of Savarkar's life, contended that the subject before the Special Court is limited.

Key points

• Phadnis challenges an order from the Special MP/MLA Court in Pune rejecting his plea to intervene in the defamation proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
• Phadnis remarked he was surprised by a newspaper report from June 15, 2026.
• The Special Court, led by Judge Amol Shinde, dismissed Mr.
• The Supreme Court had earlier refused to entertain a separate petition from Phadnis.
• The Pune court is hearing the criminal defamation complaint from Satyaki Savarkar.

Pankaj Phadnis has filed an interim application in the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19, 2026) as part of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) he initiated in 2024 to raise awareness regarding Vinayak Savarkar. Through this application, Mr. Phadnis challenges an order from the Special MP/MLA Court in Pune rejecting his plea to intervene in the defamation proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

Satyaki Savarkar, Savarkar's grand-nephew, initiated the defamation case. It reservations remarks produced by Mr. Gandhi regarding the right-wing ideologue. The Special Court, led by Judge Amol Shinde, dismissed Mr. Phadnis's intervention request. The court imposed a cost of ₹20, 000 on him, stating that the application wasted judicial time.

In his interim application before the High Court, Mr. Phadnis requests a stay on the defamation proceedings. He additionally seeks the appointment of an Amicus Curiae. The Amicus would examine whether the evidence being recorded by the special court is relevant to the original complaint.

Meanwhile, the application accuses the Special Court of judicial indiscipline. It states that the court is passing perverse orders. The plea argues that the Pune court is dealing with problems beyond its jurisdiction. Specifically, it notes the court is attempting to determine whether Savarkar was brave or a coward.

Mr. According to Phadnis, he chose to intervene after reading a news report. The report indicated that Mr. Satyaki, during cross-examination, informed the court that Savarkar filed 10 mercy petitions. Mr. Phadnis claims to possess expert knowledge of Savarkar's life. His research, he notes, led him to conclude that Savarkar is a person worthy of respect.

In practice, the plea mentions Savarkar's views on secularism. It cites his statement that different religions add beauty to Indian society, like colours create a rainbow. Mr. According to Phadnis additionally, a disservice was done to Savarkar by some followers. He named Godse, who conspired to murder Mahatma Gandhi, and those who consider minorities as second-class citizens.

Mr. Phadnis remarked he was surprised by a newspaper report from June 15, 2026. The report indicated that the defamation case was proceeding on subjects not connected to the complaint. He argued that an individual's contribution to the freedom struggle is not a matter for judicial determination. He remarked this falls within the domain of Parliament. He observed that Parliament has displayed Savarkar's portrait with the consent of all parties, including the Indian National Congress.

Mr. Phadnis contends that the subject before the Special Court is limited. He argued that the court should only determine whether Savarkar wrote regarding beating up a Muslim in his books and not go beyond this aspect.

In practice, the plea argues that questions of cowardice cannot be decided by a court. It notes such matters are best left to Parliament and the Administration. The application accuses the Special Judge of exceeding jurisdiction. It notes the judge permitted Gandhi and Satyaki to move beyond the scope of the complaint.

In practice, the plea additionally claims that Mr. Phadnis has a right to a meaningful life under Article 21. He remarked this right is violated by Mr. Gandhi's statements regarding Savarkar. He mentioned that plenty of Indians, including Prime Ministers, hold Savarkar in high esteem. The interim application is scheduled to come before a division Bench.

Notably, the Supreme Court had earlier refused to entertain a separate petition from Phadnis. That petition sought steps to prevent insults to Savarkar.

For context, the Pune court is hearing the criminal defamation complaint from Satyaki Savarkar. The complaint reservations Mr. Gandhi's remarks that Savarkar boasted in his book regarding beating up a Muslim.

During cross-examination by Mr. Gandhi's lawyer, Mr. According to Satyaki, savarkar wrote mercy letters to the British. According to He additionally, the title "Swatantryaveer" was not conferred on Savarkar by any administration. Mr. According to Satyaki, savarkar wrote a book criticising rituals, questioning God's existence, and disapproving of worshipping the cow. Mr. According to Satyaki additionally, nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse were active RSS members.

For now, savarkar defamation case: High Court plea accuses court of trying to determine remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.