PUNE, July 4 -- The special member of Parliament - member of legislative assembly (MP-MLA) court on Thursday rejected an application seeking to compel Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to submit a copy of the book he was referring to during a speech in London on March 2, 2023, in which he allegedly made defamatory remarks about Hindutva icon, Veer Savarkar. "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The burden of proof lies entirely on the complainant. Hence, the application filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected," judicial magistrate Amol Shinde said in the order pronounced in open court on July 3. Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, appearing for Satyaki Savarkar - Veer Savarkar's grand-nephew who filed the defamation complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) last year - had argued that Gandhi's lawyer was deliberately delaying proceedings which are currently at the stage of recording the plea. Advocate Kolhatkar maintained that the book in question is essential to ensuring a fair trial. In response, Gandhi's lawyer, advocate Milind Pawar, strongly opposed the plea, stating that the trial had not yet commenced and therefore Gandhi could not be compelled to disclose any part of his defence or supporting documents. Advocate Pawar argued that the burden of proof lies solely on the complainant and compelling the accused to produce material at this stage would violate the accused's constitutional protection under Article 20(3) which safeguards against self-incrimination. Advocate Pawar further argued, "There is no legal obligation on the defence to provide any document or material to the complainant. Such a direction would seriously prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial ..." The court observed: "Gandhi cannot be compelled to disclose or submit any part of his defence before the trial formally begins. He is entitled to present relevant documents at the defence stage as per the law. Forcing the accused to produce material at this preliminary stage would infringe upon his constitutional protection ..."...