An application to force Congress MP Rahul Gandhi to produce a book he mentioned in a 2023 speech—remarks that are the focus of an ongoing defamation lawsuit—was denied by a Pune court. According to the court's ruling, an accused individual cannot be coerced into testifying against themselves or into providing any information that might be used against them.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's grandson, Satyaki Savarkar, filed the complaint. He claimed that Gandhi had disparaged his grandfather in the speech, and he asked the court to order Gandhi to produce the book he had referenced so it could be used as proof in court.
Special Magistrate AS Shinde, however, rejected the plea, arguing that it would be unconstitutional to force the accused to produce such evidence prior to the start of the trial. The court ruled that the accused could not be forced to reveal his defence prior to the trial starting. It also noted that Gandhi's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution would be violated if he were forced to provide evidence at this point.
Also Read: Rahul slams GST as 'brutal injustice', calls for major reform
"If the accused is compelled to produce such evidence prematurely, it would amount to a violation of his fundamental right," the judge said, underscoring the presumption of innocence. Until the accused is proven guilty, they are presumed innocent.
Advocate Milind Pawar, Rahul Gandhi's lawyer, vehemently disagreed with the application. He maintained that the defence is under no duty to disclose its plan or offer supporting documentation before the prosecution has presented its case. "The burden of proof lies entirely on the complainant," Pawar said, adding that the complainant must "prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt."
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi calls Puri stampede a warning for large events
Pawar further argued that Gandhi's right to a fair trial would be compromised if the application were granted. According to him, requiring the accused to refute the accusation at an early stage would incorrectly shift the burden of proof and go against accepted criminal jurisprudential principles. He argued that such a directive is incompatible with constitutional guarantees and is not allowed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Also Read: 'Kiska saath, kiska vikas?': Rahul slams China fertiliser use
In support of this stance, the court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests with the complainant. The defence may choose to provide evidence only if the complainant satisfies the legal requirements; this must be done willingly and at the proper point in the proceedings, not earlier. The court's ruling emphasises the prosecution's obligation to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings and upholds the constitutional protection against coercion to self-incriminate.
Also Read: Farmers sinking in debt, no MSP guarantee: Rahul Gandhi
Follow us
