A Special MP/MLA Court in Pune on Friday (August 14) dismissed an application filed by Pankaj Phadnis, a professor claiming to have 'expert knowledge' about the life of right-wing ideologue Vinayak Savarkar, who sought to intervene in the ongoing criminal defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

For context, Savarkar's grandnephew Satyaki has lodged a criminal defamation case against Gandhi for allegedly defaming Savarkar by delivering a speech in London. He is being cross-examined before the Special Court by Gandhi's lawyer Milind Pawar.

Last week, Phadnis filed an application seeking intervention in the proceedings claiming that Satyaki may not have had personally interacted with Savarkar and thus does not have complete knowledge about his ideology, thinking etc. and thus, he has been bringing any and everything on record during his cross-examination by merely responding in the affirmative.

Special Judge Amol Shinde while dismissing his plea also imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on Phadnis for consuming the court's precious time.

"This court finds that the intervenor has no legal right to participate in this proceeding. He is also not the aggrieved person as defined in Section 199 of CrPC. The intervenor has not stated which of his right has been violated. He has no Locus Standi to make this application. The intervenor is not family member or other near relatives of Late. Savarkar and cannot unilaterally assume unto himself the status of an aggrieved person under section 199 of CrPC, thereby he could assert that his feelings were hurt and maintain the subject complaint against the accused for the alleged offence of defamation. Therefore, this court finds that, the intervenor is not entitled to be impleaded in this case as a party and his presence is not necessary. The cross examination of complainant is going on. The intervenor has consumed more and precious time of this court. Therefore, some costs need to be imposed on the intervenor and thus, his application is rejected, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000 to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Pune," the court held.

Notably, Phadnis, who has been litigating in Bombay High Court and also in Supreme Court for 'protecting the dignity and honour' of Savarkar, claims to have spent 25 'valuable' years of his career in doing 'rigorous' scientific research on Savrkar's life and has also authored three books on him.

"The intervenor stated that he has reasonably good knowledge about life and times of Late Savarkar. The complainant (Satyaki) has no personal interactions with Late Savarkar. Complainant's mother who may have had some interactions with Late Savarkar was not his biological kin. She had married into Savarkar's family. The accused (Gandhi) may take undue advantage of the ignorance of the complainant about Late Savarkar to ensure that, misleading, mischief and false statement are being taken on record in Court of law. This Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the historical or political issues," advocate Vinod Satpute argued on behalf Phadnis.

Further, Phadnis through his counsel also urged the special court to delete on the record all questions, answers and observations made during Satyaki's cross-examination, which he claimed, travels beyond the jurisdiction of the Special Court.

However Gandhi's counsel Pawar vehemently opposed the request made by Phadnis to intervene and to delete the material brought on record till date through cross-examination. He argued that the criminal trial cannot be converted in to a general forum for participation by person asserting and independent, collateral or purported interest in the subject matter of the proceeding.

"The intervenor has no independent cause of action arising out of the present complaint and no relief has been sought against him by either complainant or the accused. My client has fundamental right of fair trial and he cannot be compelled to defend himself against a moving or expanding target. The intervenor cannot introduce a new factual foundation, supplement deficiencies in the existing complaint or seek to fill lacuna in the evidence already led by the complainant. The trial has already substantially progressed. Therefore, the defence cannot be required to recalibrate or restructure its case to meet a new case sought to be introduce by the intervenor who was a never a party to original prosecution. It would inevitability open the door the multiplicity of proceeding, repeated intervention, additional, oral and written submission, production of extraneous or otherwise irrelevant material if the application is allowed," Pawar argued.

Phadnis' plea to intervene was further strongly objected by Satyaki through his advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, who argued that Phadnis as an intervenor cannot forcefully impose himself upon the complainant.

"The criminal jurisprudence does not recognize the concept of unnecessary party or an intervenor in a trial of a private criminal complaint. The presence of the intervenor is not necessary in this matter. The complainant is unaware and oblivious to the intention of the intervenor and also about his expertise and experience. If he is impleaded, the trial will get delayed, derailed and distracted which will cause heavy irreparable loss to the complainant. The intervenor wants to promote his three books by using this court as a platform," Kolhatkar argued.

The special court after considering the submissions, rejected the intervention application with costs.

Case Title: Satyaki Savarkar vs Rahul Gandhi

Click Here To Read/Download Order