On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a stern warning to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi regarding his remarks about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The court labeled Gandhi’s comments as “irresponsible” and cautioned him against making further derogatory statements about freedom fighters. This admonition came while the court stayed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Gandhi in a Lucknow court.
Background of the Case
The controversy stems from a speech delivered by Rahul Gandhi on November 17, 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in Akola, Maharashtra. In this speech, Gandhi referred to Savarkar as a “British servant” who received a pension from the colonial government . This statement led Advocate Nripendra Pandey to file a complaint in a Lucknow court, alleging that Gandhi’s remarks were intended to insult Savarkar and incite societal discord . The trial court subsequently issued a summons to Gandhi, a decision upheld by the Allahabad High Court on April 4, 2025. Gandhi then approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan expressed strong disapproval of Gandhi’s statements. Justice Datta questioned Gandhi’s understanding of historical context, noting that even Mahatma Gandhi used the phrase “your faithful servant” in correspondence with the British Viceroy. He also highlighted that Indira Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother and former Prime Minister, had praised Savarkar in official communications.
The bench emphasized that such remarks were particularly insensitive given Savarkar’s revered status in Maharashtra, stating, “You go to Akola and make this statement, in Maharashtra where he (Savarkar) is worshipped? Don’t do this” . The court warned that any future derogatory comments about freedom fighters could lead to suo motu contempt proceedings.
Legal Proceedings and the Court’s Decision
While the Supreme Court stayed the criminal defamation proceedings against Gandhi, it issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant, Advocate Nripendra Pandey. The court clarified that its stay was not an endorsement of Gandhi’s remarks but a procedural decision, and it expected Gandhi to refrain from making similar statements in the future.
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the dignity of India’s freedom fighters and maintaining respectful public discourse. While Gandhi has received temporary relief from legal proceedings, the court’s admonition serves as a cautionary reminder of the responsibilities that come with public leadership.
