Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, told a special MP/MLA court in Pune that the right-wing ideologue had submitted ten clemency petitions to the British government seeking reduction of his sentence. The testimony was part of a criminal defamation case Mr. Satyaki has filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

During the hearing of the case in the court of special judge Amol Shinde, Mr. Satyaki said Savarkar was referred to as “veer” in a periodical run by the Gadar Organisation before he was transferred to the Andaman Islands.

Also read: How Savarkar escaped the gallows

When asked about incarcerations of other revolutionaries from the same period, Mr. Satyaki said the likes of Rajguru, Batukeshwar Dutt, and Ashfaqulla Khan did not file clemency petitions. But Savarkar submitted a mercy petition within the first month after receiving his sentence, he said. Mr. Satyaki told the court that he was not aware of Bhagat Singh and Dutt petitioning the British government to demand treatment as prisoners of war, and to refuse concessions or leniency. He agreed that Singh and Dutt stood by their ideology and principles until the end of their lives.

Mr. Satyaki informed the court that records of Savarkar’s ten petitions exist in government archives. He said the language in these petitions did not indicate loyalty to the British regime and were forwarded by prison authorities for approval. He said language used in clemency petitions followed official protocol.

Mr. Satyaki said he was not aware that Savarkar signed each petition with the phrase, “I beg to remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, V.D. Savarkar.” He denied that Savarkar was released after these ten petitions were filed.

According to him, the British government had the authority to commute or alter sentences in mercy petitions. The reduction or remission of sentences depended on the government’s policy and procedure.

Mr. Satyaki said the colonial government had rejected all of Savarkar’s clemency petitions. In their replies, the authorities expressed apprehension that Savarkar would rejoin the revolutionary movement if released, potentially ending British rule, he said.

Savarkar’s grandnephew said that filing clemency petitions were standard procedures under the British government, adding that other prisoners had filed such petitions and the practice was neither exceptional nor illegal.

The court recorded excerpts from one mercy petition in which Savarkar stated that others sent to the Andaman jail with him be released and he be kept incarcerated and classified as a Class D prisoner facing harsh punishment.

The witness said he did not have a report comparing the mercy petitions filed by Savarkar with those made by other prisoners. Mr. Satyaki testified that no prisoner was obligated to submit a mercy petition. The decision to file such petitions depended on the prisoner’s preference.