Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has claimed there is a credible threat to his life in connection with the ongoing criminal defamation case related to his remarks against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The claim was made through a pursis submitted to a special MP/MLA court in Pune by Gandhi’s advocate Milind Pawar, asserting that individuals subscribing to Savarkar’s ideology pose a danger to the Congress leader.

The application referenced specific threats and derogatory comments made by BJP leaders, including RN Bittu, who reportedly labeled Gandhi a “terrorist”, and Tarvinder Marwah, who allegedly warned that Gandhi could “face the same fate as his grandmother” if he did not “behave well”. The submission also pointed to the lineage of the complainant, Satyaki Savarkar, who is allegedly connected to the Savarkar and Godse families, implying potential misuse of political influence.

The pursis expressed a “clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension” of harm or wrongful implication due to the ideological and historical background of those associated with the complainant. Gandhi’s counsel argued that the prevailing political climate, combined with these associations, presents a real risk to the Congress leader’s safety.

Gandhi reaffirmed his faith in the independence of the judiciary but urged the court to remain vigilant to the “forces, influences, and extraordinary circumstances” surrounding the case. The defence submission highlighted concerns about the Hindutva ideology, alleging it has historically sought political power through unconstitutional means and is now fostering social and caste-based animosity.

The plea further suggested that individuals aligned with such ideology—extremists, politically motivated industrialists, and those undermining democratic governance—may view Gandhi as a threat due to his role as Leader of the Opposition and his vocal stance on behalf of the marginalized and poor.

As the case proceeds, the defence seeks heightened awareness and caution from the court, citing both historical precedent and current political dynamics as grounds for their concerns.