Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Against Rahul Gandhi Over Remarks on Savarkar

The Bombay High Court on July 15, 2025, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi.

The petition alleged that Gandhi violated the petitioner’s rights by making “immature” comments about Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

The PIL asked the court to direct Gandhi to read the contents of the petition and study Savarkar before making public statements.

Petitioner Urges Gandhi to Study Savarkar

The 125-page PIL was filed by Professor Pankaj K. Phadnis, 65, a Mumbai-based researcher and founding president of Abhinav Bharat Congress, a public policy think tank.

The petition highlighted Phadnis’s historical research and writings on Savarkar and took exception to Gandhi’s statements made during a March 2023 visit to London.

Phadnis claimed Gandhi painted Savarkar as someone who enjoyed humiliating Muslims.

He further referenced a press conference on March 25, 2023, where Gandhi had remarked, “My name is not Savarkar, I am Gandhi and Gandhi does not make apologies to anyone,” interpreting it as derogatory.

Concerns Over Gandhi’s Future Leadership

Phadnis stated, “Rahul Gandhi is LoP in Lok Sabha and could well become Prime Minister of India in the future. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to take liberties with facts to denigrate respected leaders of freedom struggle and prevent the young from being in a position to fulfil their fundamental duties.”

He urged the court to direct Gandhi to engage with the facts laid out in his petition, including allowing cross-examination to clarify Savarkar’s contributions.

Court Rejects Plea, Questions Legal Grounds

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne declined to entertain the petition. They pointed out that the Supreme Court had already dismissed a similar plea by Phadnis.

The Bench questioned the practicality and legality of directing a political leader to study a petitioner’s document.

“In your petition, your prayer is to direct him to personally study and read your petition. How can the court compel him to read your petition? This court cannot issue directions to Rahul Gandhi to study the contents of this petition and remove ignorance about the contribution of Savarkar,” the court said.

It further questioned Phadnis’s claim about Gandhi potentially becoming Prime Minister, asking, “Do you know that he will become the Prime Minister?”

Defamation Case Already Pending in Pune

The court observed that a criminal defamation complaint was already filed against Gandhi by Savarkar’s grandnephew, Satyaki Savarkar, and that it was being heard by a special MP/MLA court in Pune.

The High Court emphasized that Phadnis had the option to pursue similar remedies under defamation laws.

The Bench reminded the petitioner that the Supreme Court had previously rejected his plea, which had demanded the inclusion of Savarkar’s name in the schedule of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

That law is aimed at preventing the improper commercial or professional use of names and emblems.

Controversial Comments and Earlier Petitions

Phadnis cited Gandhi’s alleged statements during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in 2022, where he called Savarkar a “British servant” who accepted a pension from the colonial government.

He also referred to Gandhi’s May 28, 2025, remark that Savarkar considered Muslims and Christians as traitors. According to the petitioner, these comments distorted historical facts and confused young Indians.

In response, the Division Bench disposed of the case, stating that courts cannot compel political leaders to read specific materials.

The court reiterated that Phadnis had a legal path available to him through defamation proceedings.

Ongoing Legal and Political Tensions

The High Court underlined the fact that the issue was already being addressed in another legal forum. Satyaki Savarkar’s criminal defamation case against Gandhi continues in the Pune MP/MLA court.

The controversy highlights ongoing political tensions around historical figures and their portrayal in contemporary discourse.