Savarkar defamation case: Plea in High Court accuses Special Court of trying to determine if Savarkar was ‘brave or coward’

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

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 about 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 concerns remarks made by Mr. Gandhi about 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 also 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.

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 issues beyond its jurisdiction. Specifically, it says the court is attempting to determine whether Savarkar was brave or a coward.

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

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. Phadnis also stated that 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 said he was surprised by a newspaper report from June 15, 2026. The report showed 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 said this falls within the domain of Parliament. He noted 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 about beating up a Muslim in his books and not go beyond this aspect.

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

The plea also claims that Mr.