The application emphasises that this concern is grounded in the historical record of political violence linked to extremist factions and, given the ideological heritage of the complainant, combined with the hostile current climate, the fear is neither vague nor unfounded. It concludes that “preventive protection [for Gandhi] is not only wise but a constitutional obligation of the state”.

Advocate Pawar stated that this pursis — or formal application — was submitted as a precaution to protect the integrity, fairness and transparency of the ongoing proceedings.

He added, “It cannot be ruled out that individuals inspired by the unconstitutional ideology of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and holding the same dangerous mindset as Nathuram and Gopal Godse may pose a threat to Gandhi’s life.”

The court has already granted Gandhi bail in this case.

Responding to the plea, Satyaki Savarkar dismissed it as frivolous and argued it was an attempt to delay the trial. “The facts Gandhi mentioned in his application are unrelated to the current case,” he told reporters outside.

Satyaki Savarkar had previously filed a complaint against Gandhi, alleging that during a speech in London in March 2023, Gandhi claimed that V.D. Savarkar had written in a book that he and some friends once assaulted a Muslim man and that Savarkar felt happy about it.

Satyaki Savarkar denied that such an incident ever occurred, asserting that Savarkar never made such an admission anywhere.