Pune Special Court Warns Rahul Gandhi Against Commenting On Orders Not Challenged Before Appropriate Court In Savarkar Case
Sangeetha Prathap
A Special MP/MLA Court in Pune has directed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi not to make comments on court orders which he has chosen not to challenge before a higher forum in the Savarkar defamation case. The direction was issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class Amol Shriram Shinde while disposing of an application filed by complainant Satyaki Savarkar on December 2, 2025.
The complainant had moved the present application alleging that certain statements made at paragraphs 11 and 13 of an earlier application filed by Rahul cast serious doubt on the functioning of the court and amounted to mudslinging. According to the complainant, Rahul suggested that the summons order had been “obtained” through “over reach” and not on the basis of lawful and cogent material. It was argued before the court that these statements were baseless and were intended to create an impression that the predecessor judge had mechanically issued process against Rahul without proper judicial consideration.
Rahul in his clarification stated that there was no provision requiring him to give an explanation for the impugned statements and submitted that the complainant was attempting to delay the proceedings despite having failed to lead evidence. He further maintained that the questioning of the summons could not be construed as misconduct, asserting that the complainant was trying to compel the defence to disclose its legal strategy at a premature stage.
After hearing both sides and examining the case record, the court observed that once a trial has commenced, adjournments are to be granted only for valid reasons and that the complainant is required to prove his case without unnecessary delay. On the core issue, the court recorded that Rahul had indeed questioned the validity of the issuance of summons in his earlier application but had not challenged the said order before any higher court. The court therefore held that while an accused may challenge a judicial order if aggrieved, he cannot make comments or express doubts on an order that has attained finality without taking legally permissible recourse/
The court stated: “If accused has any grievances against the issuance of summons order then he should challenge it before the appropriate Court. But, he cannot make any comment on the order which he did not challenge. Either he has to accept the order or he has to challenge the order before the appropriate court.” It accordingly directed that Rahul shall not comment on any order that has become final or has remained unchallenged
While issuing the above direction, the court declined the complainant’s prayer to seek an explanation from Rahul regarding the statements in question. The application was disposed of with the single direction restraining Rahul from commenting on any court order that he has not challenged before a competent court, without granting any further relief to the complainant.
Cause Title: Satyaki Savarkar Vs. Rahul Gandhi
Case No: SCC No. 73377/2024
Coram: Amol Shriram Shinde (Judicial Magistrate First Class)
