New Delhi: Activist Medha Patkar’s statement against Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena over 23 years ago portrayed him as a “hypocrite,” which not just intended to harm his reputation, but caused actual damage to his image and standing in society, a Delhi court said in its judgment that convicted Patkar for criminal defamation.
Holding the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) activist guilty of lowering Saxena’s standing in society, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma Friday observed: “Therefore, it is clear that the accused’s actions were deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing the complainant’s good name, and have indeed caused substantial harm to his standing and credit in the eyes of the public.”
The judgment came on a two-decade-old complaint lodged by Saxena when he headed the National Council of Civil Liberties — a Gujarat-based NGO. Saxena was then actively involved in public interest causes, exposing unfair trade practices adopted by all companies and bringing large-scale evasions of sales tax in interstate transactions to the fore.
In 2000, Saxena released an advertisement that took a critical stance on the Narmada Bachao Andolan, which was spearheaded by Patkar and opposed the construction of dams on the Narmada River. In response, NBA released a “press notice” targeting Saxena.
The following year, Saxena filed a defamation case against Patkar in Ahmedabad. However, in accordance with a directive from the Supreme Court, the lawsuit was transferred to Delhi in 2003.
The press release issued by NBA said Saxena “who is pained by the hawala transactions, himself came to Malegaon, praised NBA and gave a cheque of Rs 40,000 to Lok Samiti naively and promptly sent the receipt and letter, which shows honesty and good record keeping than anything else. But the cheque could not encashed and got bounced.”
“On enquiry, the bank reported the account does not exist,” the release added.
The cheque, the note said, came from Lalbhai Group. It sought to question the connection between Lalbhai Group and Saxena, raising the question — “who among them is more patriot (sic).”
The release also contained an accusation that Saxena was mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests.
In his 55-page judgment, magistrate Sharma ruled the contents of the release launched a “direct attack” on Saxena’s “integrity and public service”. It unequivocally and unambiguously harmed his reputation, standing and credibility.
Besides, it caused confusion regarding Saxena’s activities since he was a known supporter of the Sardar Sarovar Dam project. But NBA’s press release indicated the contrary, projecting him as an NBA supporter, even though he wasn’t one, said the judgment.
Also Read: Issue of form 17C not decided, says SC to poll body’s argument that it was a ‘settled’ matter
The defamation suit
In his complaint filed before a metropolitan magistrate in Ahmedabad, demanding Patkar’s trial for criminal defamation, Saxena called the activist’s remarks “ironical expressions” and “imputations” made by her to lower his moral and intellectual character. He alleged it lowered his credit among the public.
After the complaint was filed in January 2001, the magistrate held an enquiry and took cognisance in April 2001 after receiving a police report. The complaint was then transferred to Delhi in February 2003 following a Supreme Court order.
During the trial, Saxena got four witnesses examined, including himself, in support of his plea. The other three included a journalist, then working with an online media portal; Saxena’s acquaintance, who has known him for the last 25 years; and an official working with the Delhi High Court.
In his complaint, Saxena denied Patkar’s statement connecting him with the Lalbhai Group and told the court that he was unaware if any cheque was issued by this group.
From the court order, it appears, Patkar did not lead any defence evidence. However, in her statement recorded before the court, she accused Saxena of running a “campaign of spreading false and defamatory statements and advertisement” and “physically assaulting her”.
An FIR against Saxena on account of the violence inflicted on Patkar is pending trial before a metropolitan magistrate in Ahmedabad.
Saxena, who was a proponent of the Gujarat government’s Sardar Sarovar Project, represented corporate interest and was unhappy with the demand for justice for people affected by the dam work, Patkar had mentioned in her statement. Moreover, she disputed the claim that the press release was issued by her.
The judge, in the decision-making process, framed three issues for his consideration — the first being whether or not the press release was issued by Patkar.
On an intricate examination and combined reading of the statement of all four complainant’s witnesses, the magistrate rejected Patkar’s assertion that she did not issue the press release. “It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had issued the press note dated 24 November 2000,” the judge said.
On the second issue of whether Patkar was responsible for publishing and making the imputations against Saxena public, the judge answered in the affirmative.
Given that the press note on Saxena issuing the cheque and praising NBA was released by Patkar and remained unrebutted during the trial “proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, by issuing the press note and thereby making it known and available to the public, had published the above stated imputations,” the order noted.
The third issue, whether Patkar by publishing the imputation intended to harm or knew or had reason to believe that it would harm Saxena, was also held against the activist.
The judge observed that the ingredients of criminal defamation do not require proof of actual harm to reputation being suffered. It is sufficient if it is proved that imputation was made with the knowledge or with reason to believe that it would harm the reputation.
To the question of when an imputation can damage someone’s image, the court said it is done when it lowers the character, morally or intellectually, of the person to whom it causes the harm.
‘Deliberate and calculated’
In this legal backdrop, the judge evaluated the press note, the contents of which, he said, called Saxena to be “pained with hawala transactions, “a coward and not a patriot.”
Such a statement, he added, made it evident that “the accused harboured a clear intention to defame the complainant through her press note,” given the “deliberate and calculated nature of her statements.”
“She aimed to associate him with illegal and unethical financial dealings, thereby inflicting significant harm to his reputation and standing,” the court held.
According to the court, these assertions were made in the absence of any “substantive evidence,” and were clearly an “attempt to malign his financial integrity and create a public perception of wrongdoing.”
Patkar labelling Saxena as a “coward” and not a “patriot” was a direct attack on his character and loyalty to the nation, the judge opined. This was not only inflammatory but also intended to provoke public outrage and diminish Saxena’s esteem in the eyes of the community, causing irreversible damage to his public image and social standing, it added.
Moreover, the use of emotionally charged language demonstrated Patkar’s calculated effort to damage Saxena’s reputation, the judge said, adding, that the statement was crafted not just to inform, but to incite negative sentiments.
According to the court, Saxena’s portrayal through the statement implied that, despite his public opposition to the NBA, he secretly endorsed and funded it. Saxena, the court added, was recognised as a supporter of the Sardar Sarovar Dam.
His work and active fight against the NBA was widely known. But Patkar’s press release, the judge said, portrayed him as a “hypocrite.”
In the said case, the judge added, it was also proven that the activist’s public statement against Saxena caused him actual harm.
This was proven by the fact that, after the release was published, numerous people in Gujarat and elsewhere contacted him with inquiries about his activity, implying that Patkar’s release had created doubts about Saxena — shattering the high esteem in which he was held, the court concluded.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: SC sends 8 PFI men back to jail, points to ‘manifest error’ in Madras HC order granting them bail