By Admin 
The Supreme Court has stayed the summons issued against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Veer Savarkar insult case. The Supreme Court also warned Rahul Gandhi not to make irresponsible statements.
The Supreme Court said that if he makes such a statement again in future, he will take cognizance of the court statement. The court said, ‘You made such a statement in Maharashtra. People worship them there. Your grandmother also wrote a letter praising Savarkar. Mahatma Gandhi also used to send letters to the British officers and used to write- Your Fathful Servant. So will you call Mahatma Gandhi a servant of the British. It is wrong to insult freedom fighters.
Rahul Gandhi had made statements about Veer Savarkar in Akola, Maharashtra about two and a half years ago. At that time he was on the Congress’s India Yatra and the journey was passing through Maharashtra during that time. On December 17, 2022, he was in Akola district of Maharashtra. Here he addressed Savarkar as a ‘British servant’, who received pension from the British government.
Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that his client was not intended to incite anyone. The court said on this that if he did not want to instigate anyone, then why did he make such statements. The court has advised Rahul Gandhi in a strict tone that no one has the right to make wrong statements about freedom fighters. He told Rahul Gandhi that he is a politician, so why does he make such statements, do not do so.
The Supreme Court stayed the summons issued from the Lucknow court and said, ‘We are making it clear that if such statements come again, we will take automatic cognizance. No one has the right to make rhetoric on freedom fighters. Advocate Nripendra Pandey had filed a complaint and alleged that Rahul Gandhi gave this statement to deliberately insult Veer Savarkar during the India Jigo Yatra. He said that Rahul Gandhi’s comment was part of a planned conspiracy to insult Veer Savarkar.
Also read:-
Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia gets bail, Punjab government’s petition rejected in Supreme Court