Lucknow: Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has been faced with yet another defamation suit. This time, a Sessions Court in Uttar Pradesh's Lucknow district has issued a notice to Gandhi in connection with his 'derogatory' remark made against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in Maharashtra last year during his Bharat Jodo Yatra.
The notice has been issued by Lucknow District and Sessions Judge Ashwini Kumar Tripathi on a criminal revision plea filed by Advocate Nripendra Pandey challenging an order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambrish Kumar Srivastava dismissing his complaint against Gandhi as per Section 203 CrPC.
Noting that the revision was liable to be admitted as it involved questions of law and fact, the Court also transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The next hearing on the matter will take place on November 1, 2023.
It may be noted that earlier complainant Pandey had filed an application before the ACJM Court seeking registration of an FIR against Gandhi for his remarks on Savarkar.
However, the Court had thought it fit to register the complaint and examine the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, on June 14, 2023, it rejected the petition. Challenging the same, Pandey moved a revision petition before the Sessions Court.
In his plea, Pandey has alleged that on November 17, Rahul Gandhi, with the intention of spreading hatred in the society called the nationalist Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a servant of the British, adding that he took a pension from the British.
"Kantiveer Damodar, the great leader of the nationalist ideology, was a fearless freedom fighter in the history of independence, who endured the inhuman atrocities of the British to free Mother India from their slavery and Gandhi insulted Savarkar ji using indecent words and made hateful utterances to spread inferiority complex towards Savarkar ji," the plea stated.
The complaint also stated that Savarkar has been described as a patriot by Mahatma Gandhi, but Rahul Gandhi, by his statements, was creating social disharmony, and malice by propagating unnecessary views against him due to which he (the complainant) suffered a lot of mental and physical trauma.
(With Live Law inputs)
