Pune: The lawyer representing Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in a fresh application to the special MP/MLA court in Pune on Wednesday sought directions to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to personally attest or countersign every application, pursis (written statement), and proceeding filed in the ongoing defamation case to “avoid any miscarriage of justice”.The case relates to Gandhi’s alleged remarks against the Hindutva ideologue in his March 2023 speech in London. On Aug 13, Gandhi’s lawyer, Milind Pawar, claimed through a pursis that the Congress MP faced a threat to his life. However, a day later, Pawar withdrew the pursis after Gandhi expressed his strong disapproval of its contents.Satyaki’s lawyer, Sangram Kolhatkar, in his fresh plea, also sought the court’s directions for Gandhi’s personal presence and an affidavit confirming whether the earlier pursis filed by his counsel was made under his instructions. He further demanded that a “strict and stern warning” be issued to prevent any further filing without Gandhi’s instructions.“We told the court that if Gandhi filed similar applications earlier through his lawyer, why did he find only the one dated Aug 13 objectionable?” Kolhatkar told TOI, adding that he told the court that it was necessary to clarify matters at this stage, as Gandhi might later claim that his lawyer filed applications without consulting him. Kolhatkar said while he concluded his argument on Wednesday, Gandhi’s lawyer is yet to submit his response or argue on this demand, and it is likely to happen in the next hearing on Sept 22.In an earlier plea filed on Aug 13, Satyaki sought the court’s directives to officials at the Vishrambaug police station to submit information obtained from a social media platform. He also urged the court to direct Gandhi not to delete the video from the platform. Pawar, in his reply before the court, argued that the plea was “misconceived” and “not maintainable and devoid of merit”.Pawar told the court that police had already submitted their final report and there was no provision in law allowing the complainant to seek an additional report. He argued that the demand to restrain Gandhi from deleting the video was “wholly baseless, speculative, and unsupported by any provision of law.” Pawar further submitted that since the matter pertained to criminal proceedings under the IPC and not a civil suit, the court had no jurisdiction to restrain or stay the personal liberty of the accused.
