The Supreme Court quashed a criminal defamation complaint and summons against Rahul Gandhi, citing a lack of required sanction for the proceedings.
The Supreme Court quashed a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over remarks about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, citing a lack of required sanction for proceedings.
AI-generated summary
Rahul Gandhi faced defamation complaints over remarks made about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar during the Bharat Jodo Yatra and a speech in London.
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the criminal defamation complaint and summons issued against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his remarks against Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, saying the required sanction had not been obtained in the matter.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu passed the order while hearing Gandhi's challenge to the proceedings initiated against him by a subordinate court.
The bench noted that there was no disclosure of the required sanction in the case.
The court said that the Additional Solicitor General and the complainant's counsel, in an affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh government, had submitted that there was no disclosure of sanction. In view of this, the Supreme Court said the complaint and the orders passed by the magistrate stood quashed.
The defamation case relates to comments made by Rahul Gandhi about Savarkar during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in Maharashtra's Akola district on November 17, 2022.
Advocate Nripendra Pandey had filed a complaint alleging that Gandhi intentionally insulted Savarkar during the rally. The complainant alleged that Gandhi's remarks were part of a well-planned conspiracy to defame Savarkar.
Gandhi had challenged the decision of the subordinate court to summon him, arguing against the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
The case was also pursued separately by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of V D Savarkar, who had filed a defamation complaint in 2023 over remarks Gandhi made about Savarkar during a speech in London.
Satyaki alleged that Gandhi had claimed Savarkar wrote in a book that he and five or six of his friends had beaten up a Muslim man and that Savarkar felt happy about it. The complaint maintained that Savarkar had never written such an account.
The proceedings had reached the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which on April 4, 2025, said Gandhi could approach the sessions court with a revision petition. The High Court consequently declined to intervene at that stage.
Gandhi, who is the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, subsequently challenged the subordinate court's decision to summon him before the Supreme Court.
US District Judge Jeannette Vargas has invalidated a Trump administration policy that suspended immigrant visas for applicants from 75 countries, ruling the measure violates federal immigration law and exceeds the Secretary of State's authority.
Former Meta product design manager James Tillinghast is suing the company, alleging he was fired for refusing to sign an immigration support letter he deemed inaccurate and for raising concerns regarding unequal immigration assistance provided to certain employees.
Meta is on trial in Oakland, California, as 29 US states allege the company designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for minors, concealed internal research on mental health harms, and violated child privacy laws. The case could result in massive penalties.
A petition in India's Supreme Court challenges Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's prolonged tenure, seeking his removal, term limits, fresh elections, and an audit of BCI finances amid controversies.
A federal lawsuit filed by the estate of former Piedmont Airlines employee Niena Allen alleges a racially hostile work environment at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, citing incidents including mocked George Floyd death, KKK imagery, and a noose.
Pravesh Aggarwal won a case in ITAT Delhi after being penalised Rs 3.74 lakh for failing to file his ITR on time due to missing Form 16 during a job switch, as TDS was already deducted.