A Pune court on August 14 dismissed an intervention application filed by researcher Pankaj K Phadnis seeking permission to participate in the ongoing private criminal defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar (grandnephew of Vinayak Savarkar) against leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Amol Shriram Shinde rejected Phadnis's plea, ruling that the intervenor had no legal right or locus standi to participate in the proceedings.
“The intervenor who is not a family member or near relatives of late Savarkar cannot unilaterally assume unto himself the status of an aggrieved person under section 199 of Cr.P.C. to assert that his feelings were hurt and maintain the subject complaint against the accused for the alleged offence of defamation,” the Court said.
The judge also imposed costs of ₹20,000 for wasting the court’s time. The judge directed Phadnis to deposit the amount with Pune District Legal Services Authority.
“The intervenor has consumed more and precious time of this court. Therefore, some costs need to be imposed on the intervenor. Considering the above discussions, the application of the intervenor is liable to be rejected,” the order stated.
The case, initiated by Satyaki Savarkar, stemmed from the remarks made by Gandhi during an address in the United Kingdom in March 2023 regarding late Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Phadnis approached the court to be impleaded as a party to the matter. He argued that his expertise and historical documentary material would assist the court in effectively adjudicating the truth. He cited over 25 years of rigorous scientific research on VD Savarkar and his authorship of three relevant books.
Both the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, and the accused, Rahul Gandhi, strongly opposed the intervention.
Savarkar’s lawyer Sangram Kothalkar argued that criminal jurisprudence does not recognize an intervenor in a private complaint. He accused Phadnis of attempting to delay the trial and using the court to promote his books.
Similarly, Gandhi's lawyer Milind Pawar contended that allowing a third party to participate would fundamentally alter the trial's scope. He added that this would prejudice Satyaki’s ongoing cross-examination.
Pawar also argued that Gandhi has a fundamental right to fair trial and could not be compelled to defend himself against an “expanding target”.
The Court accepted the lawyers’ contentions and rejected the application.
Savarkar’s cross examination by Gandhi's counsel will continue on August 17.
[Read Order]