Rahul Gandhi gets permanent exemption from attending defamation case hearings

PUNE: The court of special magistrate Amol Shinde passed an order on Tuesday permanently exempting Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi from attending day-to-day hearings of a defamation case filed against him by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, over his alleged objectionable remarks in London in March 2023.
The court on Jan 10 had granted bail to Gandhi in this case after he appeared through video conference. His lawyer, Milind Pawar, had filed an application seeking the court's permission to permanently exempt him from day-to-day hearing of the case as he had a busy schedule because he held a Constitutional position.
The court observed in a three-page order on Tuesday, "Gandhi has Z+ security and he is LoP (Leader of Opposition) in the Lok Sabha. He has to attend official, political and social programmes all over India with prior approval of his security and day-to-day schedule. The expenses of security are considerable. This court finds that Gandhi should be granted permanent exemption from personal appearance in the case because of law and order issues."
The court granted the exemption subject to conditions that Rahul Gandhi will not dispute his identity and he would not raise objections before the court that the evidence was recorded in his absence.
Earlier in the day, Pawar filed another plea stating that Gandhi wanted a detailed recording of evidence in the case. "The defamation case by Satyaki was registered by the court as a summary case. We are seeking comprehensive recording of evidence, including witness testimonies, which does not happen during summary proceedings. We have moved an application seeking to convert the ongoing summary trial into a summons trial under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With a summons trial, the defence and the prosecution will be in a position to produce detailed evidence."
There are certain complex issues related to facts and law arising in the defamation case, and detailed cross-examination may not be permissible if this case was tried summarily, he said. "The trial is likely to take a long time, and it shall be incumbent in the interest of justice that this case is tried as a summons case. The conversion of the case into a summons case does not cause prejudice to either of the parties," he added.
The court directed Satyaki's lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar to file his written submission and posted the matter for the next hearing on February 25.