'Rahul Gandhi Can't Be Witness Against Himself': Court In Defamation Case

A court in Pune has rejected a petitioner's request to get a copy of a book which Congress MP Rahul Gandhi cited during a speech in March 2023, which led to the filing of a defamation case against the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Satyaki Savarkar, the grand nephew of Vinayak Savarkar, filed the petition in a special MP/MLA court in Pune seeking a copy of the book which Mr Gandhi used while attacking Vinayak Savarkar.

The court, however, rejected the petition, saying the "accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, nor can he be compelled to produce incriminating material against him."

The court said the trial has not yet started, so the defence cannot be compelled to disclose documents.

"... The burden of proof lies entirely on the complainant. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the application is allowed, it would cause serious prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial and his right to defend himself effectively," judicial magistrate first class Amol Shriram Shinde said in the order.

"Forcing the defence to prematurely disclose defence materials is neither permitted under criminal procedure nor compatible with constitutional guarantees. It would violate the constitutional right provided under Article 20(3) of the Constitution," the court said.

The defamation case against Mr Gandhi alleged he had on several occasions maligned Vinayak Savarkar, and one particular incident in March 2023 during a speech in the UK crossed the limit.

As per Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, the court said.

"Therefore, this court is of the opinion that an order cannot be passed directing the accused to file the incriminating documents. The documents in question are incriminating in nature and are sought to be produced against the accused.

"The accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, nor can he be compelled to produce incriminating material against him. Hence, the application filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected," the court said.