In a major relief for Rahul Gandhi, the Supreme Court dismissed the entire proceedings in the Savarkar defamation case. The bench stated that there was no government approval required for prosecution under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, “if there is no approval, the matter is over.”
Major relief for Rahul Gandhi from the Supreme Court in the Savarkar defamation case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed proceedings in a private criminal complaint pending in Uttar Pradesh against Congress MP and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. The case related to alleged objectionable remarks against Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and allegations of promoting communal disharmony in society. The state government stated that it lacked the sanction to prosecute the case. The apex court said, “If there is no sanction, the matter ends here.” The bench then quashed the complaint and all related orders passed by the magistrate.
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, while passing the order, stated that the necessary sanction of the Uttar Pradesh government was not obtained before taking cognizance of the offense under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The bench clarified that such sanction is mandatory and in its absence, criminal proceedings cannot proceed. Rahul Gandhi had challenged the summons issued by the trial court to face trial under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 505 of the IPC in the Supreme Court. He approached the apex court after not receiving relief from the Allahabad High Court.
“If there is no sanction, the matter ends here”
During the hearing on Friday, Justice Datta asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, whether the state government had given sanction for the prosecution. Nataraj clarified that no such sanction had been obtained. It has not been granted. Under Section 196 of the CrPC, prior sanction of the State Government is required to take cognizance of an offence under Section 153A of the IPC. The lawyer representing the complainant submitted that if the required sanction is not available, the summons order can be cancelled and the matter can be sent back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. He added that if sanction is required, he will take necessary steps for that. However, Justice Datta stated that sanction is mandatory before taking cognizance of an offence. He remarked, “If there is no sanction, the matter ends there.” The bench then quashed the complaint and all related orders passed by the magistrate.
The case involved remarks on Savarkar.
Rahul Gandhi was summoned as an accused for a speech he made at a press conference in December 2024. The complainant, advocate Nripendra Pandey, alleged that Gandhi had described Savarkar as a servant of the British and claimed that he received a pension from the British. The complainant alleged that these remarks were intended to spread hatred and animosity in society. In December 2024, Lucknow Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ACJM Alok Verma issued summons to Rahul Gandhi. The court stated that distributing pre-printed pamphlets and material at the press conference allegedly indicated an intent to spread hatred and animosity in society. The Allahabad High Court refused to grant relief to Rahul Gandhi on April 4, 2025. High Court Justice Subhash Vidyarthi orally stated that Gandhi had the option of approaching a sessions judge.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings. Stay
Last year, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in the case following Rahul Gandhi’s petition. However, at that time, Justice Datta expressed strong displeasure over the comments made against Savarkar. He questioned whether freedom fighters should be treated in this manner. Justice Datta also stated that if such comments were repeated in the future, the court could take suo motu cognizance and initiate contempt proceedings against Rahul Gandhi. On Friday, however, the bench dismissed the case entirely on legal grounds. Due to the Uttar Pradesh government’s lack of sanction for prosecution, the complaint against Rahul Gandhi and the magistrate’s summons were dismissed. Senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Rahul Gandhi.
Reported by: Rajesh Chaudhary•Edited by: Ashok Upadhyay
About the Author
Rajesh Chaudhary has been associated with Navbharat Times since 2007. He covers the Supreme Court, High Courts, lower courts, and the CBI in Delhi and also brings you news on Speed News. Will remain.
Courtesy: Hindi News