Bombay HC Rejects PIL Against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi Over Remarks On Savarkar, Cites Supreme Court Dismissal

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to stop "ignoring" the contribution of leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar to India’s freedom struggle.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne dismissed the petition filed by Pankaj Phadnis, co-founder of Abhinav Bharat Congress, observing that the Supreme Court had already rejected a similar plea by the same petitioner.

“This court cannot issue any direction to respondent 1 (Rahul Gandhi) to study the contents of this PIL and to remove ignorance about the contribution of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar,” the bench said in its order.

Phadnis had earlier approached the Supreme Court contending that Gandhi violated his fundamental duties under the Constitution by making derogatory remarks against Savarkar. The top court, however, dismissed the plea on May 27, which had also sought to include Savarkar’s name in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act.

Appearing as party-in-person, Phadnis submitted that Gandhi, being the Leader of Opposition (LoP), should not make disparaging statements about national icons. He particularly objected to Gandhi’s 2023 speech in London where he allegedly said, “Savarkar viewed Muslims as traitors.”

“In our democracy, an LoP can become a Prime Minister tomorrow. So, he (Gandhi) may become a PM,” Phadnis said. To this, the court orally remarked, “We don't know if he will be a PM or not..” Phadnis argued that Gandhi was misleading the youth of the country and “creating confusion”.

However, the bench pointed out that a criminal defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, grand-nephew of Savarkar, is already pending before a special court in Pune. The court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it could not issue directions to the legislature or grant such reliefs sought in the petition.

The court disposed of the PIL, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before an appropriate forum.