A Pune court on Monday allowed an application filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to convert the nature of the trial in a case in which he is accused of defaming Hindutva ideologue VD Savarkar from a summary trial to a summons trial, Bar and Bench reported.

This will enable Gandhi to present historical records in the court to back his statements in the matter.

The case pertains to a complaint filed by VD Savarkar’s grand-nephew Satyaki Savarkar in April 2023 against Gandhi, accusing the Congress leader of making fictitious, false and malicious remarks about the Hindutva ideologue.

Satyaki Savarkar alleged that Gandhi had made the remarks “fully knowing the said allegations to be untrue, with the specific objective of harming the reputation and to defame the surname Savarkar…”

On February 18, Gandhi filed an application in the special MP/MLA court in Pune to convert the nature of the trial in the case from a summary trial to a summons trial.

A summons trial entails detailed cross-examination and is a lengthy legal proceeding as compared to a summary trial.

On Monday, Judicial Magistrate Amol Shriram Shinde noted that Gandhi had claimed that his statements were based on historical facts, Bar and Bench reported.

“Therefore, in my view it is undesirable to try this case as a summary trial,” Bar and Bench quoted Shinde as saying in his order. “Because in summary trial detail evidence and cross examination is not taken. In this case, the accused has to lead detail evidence and has to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant thoroughly.”

Allowing Gandhi’s application, Shinde also said that the alleged offence in the matter was under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes a punishment of up to two years of simple imprisonment along with a fine for criminal defamation.

Therefore, the case prima facie is in the category of a summons case taking into account the classification based on sections 2(w) and 2(x) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge added.

Section 2(w) in the code defines a “summons case” as any case related to an offence that is not a “warrant-case”. Section 2(x) defines a “warrant-case” as one pertaining to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.

“Section 260(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides and facilitates the court that, even during the course of trial it appears that, it is undesirable to try summarily, then magistrate can re-hear the case,” Bar and Bench quoted the order as saying. “Hence, it shall be incumbent in the interest of justice that, the matter should be tried as a summons case.”

Shinde added: “No prejudice would be caused to any party, if the present case is tried as a summons case.”

In an earlier hearing, Satyaki Savarkar had opposed Gandhi’s application to convert the nature of the trial and told the court that the Congress leader was trying to “divert the matter by raising irrelevant arguments about Veer Savarkar’s contributions during the Indian freedom struggle”.

On January 10, the court granted bail to Gandhi in the case on a surety bond of Rs 25,000. On February 18, the Rae Bareli MP was granted permanent exemption from appearance.