A Pune court has rejected researcher Pankaj K Phadnis’ plea seeking to join the ongoing criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over remarks concerning freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Judicial Magistrate First Class Amol Shriram Shinde dismissed the intervention application on August 14, holding that Phadnis did not have the legal standing, or locus standi, to participate in the private criminal complaint. The court also imposed a Rs 20,000 penalty on him, describing his application as unwarranted and saying it had consumed valuable judicial time.

The defamation case was filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, over alleged defamatory remarks made by Gandhi concerning the late freedom fighter. Phadnis had approached the court seeking to be made a necessary party to the proceedings, claiming that his extensive research into Savarkar’s life and his collection of historical documents could assist the court in determining the facts of the case. However, the magistrate rejected his argument and said he could not independently assume the status of an aggrieved person in the complaint.

In its order, the court said Phadnis was neither a family member nor a near relative of Savarkar and therefore could not claim the status of an aggrieved person under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The magistrate held that his personal claim that his feelings had been hurt did not give him the legal basis to intervene in the private criminal complaint. The court consequently dismissed his application and directed him to deposit the Rs 20,000 penalty with the District Legal Services Authority in Pune on or before the next hearing.

Also Read: Congress Leaders Kharge, Rahul Gandhi Skip Independence Day Ceremony Again In 2026

Phadnis’ plea was opposed by both the complainant and Gandhi’s legal teams. Advocate Sangram Kothalkar, representing Satyaki Savarkar, argued that criminal law did not provide for an intervenor in a private complaint of this nature. He also alleged that Phadnis’ intervention could delay the proceedings and suggested that the researcher was seeking an opportunity to promote his books. Gandhi’s lawyer, Milind Pawar, similarly opposed the application, arguing that introducing a third party would alter the scope of the trial and could affect the Congress leader’s right to a fair hearing.

Pawar further argued that allowing Phadnis to participate would effectively create an expanding target for Gandhi during the proceedings and could prejudice the ongoing cross-examination. The court accepted the arguments against the intervention and concluded that there was no legal basis for allowing the researcher to become part of the case. The rejection means the principal proceedings will continue between the existing parties without Phadnis being permitted to introduce his research or historical documents as an intervenor.

The main defamation proceedings are scheduled to resume on August 17, when Satyaki Savarkar’s cross-examination is expected to continue. The court’s latest order therefore does not determine the merits of the allegations against Rahul Gandhi but only addresses Phadnis’ attempt to enter the proceedings. The Rs 20,000 penalty was imposed specifically in connection with the intervention application, which the court considered unwarranted, while the underlying criminal defamation case remains pending.

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi Plans Amritsar Visit To Heal Rifts Within Punjab Congress Unit