Pune: Savarkar-Gandhi Defamation Battle Intensifies Over Malware Claim, Family Tree Dispute

Shivajinagar, 28th May 2025: In a dramatic turn during court proceedings on a criminal defamation case against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, his lawyer Advocate Milind Pawar filed three separate applications, challenging the credibility of the complainant and raising serious objections related to alleged data manipulation, suppression of personal history, and damage to Gandhi’s public image.

The applications were submitted in response to a complaint filed by Satyaki Savarkar, a descendant of freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

1. Alleged Concealment of Maternal Family Background
In the first application, Advocate Pawar argued that the complainant had failed to disclose essential details regarding his maternal ancestry. “The complainant’s mother, late Himani Ashok Savarkar, was born into the Godse family—information that has been conveniently left out,” Pawar told the court.

He emphasized that this lineage is not just a matter of personal history but holds legal significance in the context of the case. “Establishing this connection is crucial to determine the historical and ideological affiliations relevant to the ongoing trial,” Pawar said.

According to him, the complainant filed two different versions of his family tree via affidavit—an action that, he asserted, amounts to “deliberate suppression of material facts,” a serious breach in legal proceedings. He asked the court to direct the complainant to submit a verified maternal family tree under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to ensure a fair trial.

2. Concerns Over USB Device Submitted as Evidence
The second application raised alarms about a USB pen drive submitted by the complainant as part of the case’s evidence. Pawar alleged that the device could have been tampered with or infected with spyware or malware that could compromise digital security.

“The pen drive was returned immediately to the court, as it poses potential risks,” said Pawar. “Such devices may contain auto-run viruses or trojans capable of extracting sensitive data like passwords, banking details, or even keystrokes.”

The defence insisted that without a forensic examination, the device should not be considered as reliable evidence. The court instructed the complainant’s lawyer to respond to this objection and set the next hearing date for June 12, 2025.

3. Defamation and Misuse of Judicial Process
In the third and most serious application, Rahul Gandhi’s legal team accused the complainant of filing a “false and defamatory” case with the intention of creating public outrage and tarnishing Gandhi’s image. The application invokes multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 191 (giving false evidence), 192 (fabricating evidence), 193 (false evidence in judicial proceedings), 209 (false claim in court), 499 (defamation), and 500 (punishment for defamation).

Advocate Pawar said, “The complainant was fully aware that dragging a public figure like Rahul Gandhi into court would attract media coverage. The intent here appears to be more about generating headlines than seeking justice.”

The defence requested the court to initiate legal proceedings against Satyaki Savarkar for contempt and perjury, and to issue notices under the above IPC sections.
“Let Truth Prevail”: Defence Pushes for Transparency
“The judicial process cannot be allowed to become a tool for character assassination or political agenda,” Pawar told reporters outside the courtroom. “We are not only defending our client’s reputation but also seeking to uncover the truth behind the motivations of this complaint.”

With the next hearing now scheduled for June 12, all eyes will be on how the court addresses these allegations of misinformation, cyber risk, and historical suppression.