Pune’s MP/MLA Court has given an unexpected verdict in the defamation case filed against Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The court headed by Judicial Magistrate Amol Shinde rejected the complainant’s plea seeking permission to play the YouTube video containing Rahul Gandhi’s alleged defamatory statement as alternative evidence.
This case was filed by Satyaki Savarkar, nephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. He has alleged that Rahul Gandhi had made derogatory remarks against Savarkar in a speech given in London in March 2023. But the CD of the speech presented with the allegations was found blank.
CD not played in front of judge
During the examination-in-chief of Savarkar’s nephew, the compact disc (CD) presented as primary evidence was played in the court, but to his surprise, the CD could not be played, after which the complainant’s lawyer Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar immediately requested the court to play the video directly from the original YouTube link submitted along with the complaint in 2023.
#WATCH Pune, Maharashtra: On the Savarkar defamation case, Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, counsel of complainant Satyaki Savarkar, says, “The case was filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandson of Vir Savarkar… The Court, at that time, prior to the issuance of the summons, had pic.twitter.com/lqw2ajPyf3
— ANI (@ANI) November 30, 2025
Kolhatkar claimed that when this CD was first filed and presented before another judge at the cognizance stage, it was completely fine and on this basis, summons was issued to Rahul Gandhi.
Kolhatkar said that now this is an issue of research or investigation, we are requesting that the court should conduct judicial investigation and inquiry regarding this lost evidence. It seems that the CDs are not available, or they may have been lost somewhere that we don’t know. Let us tell you that now the next date has been given as 2nd December.
Defense side’s opposition, court’s decision
Advocate Milind Pawar, representing Rahul Gandhi, strongly opposed running the YouTube link. He argued that to admit online content as evidence, mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required, which is not available in this case.
Justice Amol Shinde upheld the defense argument and rejected the petition. The court made it clear that YouTube URL is not admissible as evidence without a certificate under Section 65B. This matter is now pending for further hearing.
Leave a Reply