Savarkar defamation case: Lucknow court imposes Rs 200 cost on Rahul Gandhi for skipping appearance
Lucknow, Mar 5 (PTI): A court here on Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs 200 on Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi for skipping appearance in a 2022 defamation case related to his alleged derogatory remarks on freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma had in December 2024 asked Gandhi to appear in the court on Wednesday. However, he didn't, and his legal team filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance.
The court imposed a cost Rs 200 on him and said the amount would be paid to the complainant's lawyer. The next hearing was fixed for April 14.
In the application filed during the day, Gandhi's lawyer said the Leader of the Opposition has had official engagements, including meetings with foreign dignitaries and other scheduled programmes, which prevented him from attending the court in-person.
The defamation case stems from Gandhi's comments on Savarkar made on November 17, 2022 during his Bharat Jodo Yatra at a rally in Maharashtra's Akola district.
Advocate Nripendra Pandey filed a complaint, accusing Gandhi of intentionally insulting Savarkar during the rally.
The complainant alleged Gandhi's remarks were part of a well-planned conspiracy to defame Savarkar, and the comments were broadcast widely across the media.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sujit Nair raises concerns over speculation of DMK-AIADMK understanding to block TVK
Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.
In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.
Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.
Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.
According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.
He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.
He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.
Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.
He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.
Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.
He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.
