The Supreme Court of India on Friday extended the interim stay on the summons issued to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by a Lucknow lower court. The case pertains to Gandhi’s controversial remarks against freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra.
The extension was granted after the complainant sought additional time to file a counter-affidavit. In light of this request, the apex court adjourned the matter by four more weeks, giving the complainant two weeks to respond to Gandhi’s plea for quashing the summons.
Back in April, the top court had granted temporary relief to Rahul Gandhi but not before delivering a pointed reminder of history. The bench observed that even his grandmother and former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, had previously praised Savarkar, highlighting the complexity of political legacies.
The bench, led by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, issued a strong caution to Gandhi, instructing him to refrain from making any further derogatory statements against revered freedom fighters, especially those held in high regard in specific regions like Maharashtra.
“We will not allow anyone to make statements against our freedom fighters. Next, someone might say Mahatma Gandhi was a servant to the British,” the bench remarked during an earlier hearing.
The court underlined that VD Savarkar is deeply respected and even worshipped in Maharashtra, and warned of potential consequences should such rhetoric continue.
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government, in its counter-affidavit, firmly opposed Gandhi’s plea. It argued that the Magistrate’s summoning order was backed by substantial evidence, including findings from a Section 202 CrPC police inquiry.
The affidavit stressed, “There was sufficient material before the learned Magistrate to issue summons.”
Furthermore, the UP government alleged that Gandhi’s speech—where he referred to Savarkar as a “British pensioner” and “British servant”—was designed to incite public resentment and promote hatred and animosity.
As the case progresses, all eyes remain on how the judiciary balances freedom of speech with the respect owed to national figures, especially in a politically charged climate.
