New Delhi: Finding no procedural irregularity or manifest error in law, the Delhi High Court Tuesday refused to interfere with activist Medha Patkar’s conviction for defamation in a case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena.
The court said the orders under challenge were passed “after due consideration of the evidence on record and the applicable law,” and that Patkar, 70, failed to show any “glaring defect” or “flagrant miscarriage of justice” that would warrant intervention.
The case, stemming from events that unfolded nearly a quarter-century ago, involved a press note issued by Patkar in response to a public advertisement published by Saxena in 2000 against Patkar’s Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).
Justice Shalinder Kaur, who delivered the verdict Tuesday, found no miscarriage of justice in the decisions made by both the trial and sessions court that had been challenged by Patkar. She, however, offered limited relief to Patkar by modifying a condition of her probation.
The court ruled that Patkar would no longer be required to appear before court every three months in person; instead, she may appear through video conferencing or be represented by her advocate. All other conditions of her probation were left unchanged.
The court also dismissed her application to introduce an additional witness in the case, terming her petition “frivolous and misleading”.
The prolonged legal battle highlights the long-standing and contentious relationship between Patkar and Saxena, rooted in political and ideological opposition. Saxena has also filed another defamation case against Patkar based on her comments during a TV interview.
Also Read: Social activist Medha Patkar being released after brief arrest in defamation case by VK Saxena
Origins of case & court proceedings
Back in 2000, Saxena, then president of Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties, published an advertisement titled ‘True Face of Ms Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan’. It was critical of NBA, a movement spearheaded by Patkar to oppose the construction of large dams over the Narmada river due to their social and environmental impacts.
In response, Patkar issued a press note titled ‘True Facts of a Patriot – Response to an Advertisement,’ wherein she stated that Saxena had earlier supported the NBA. She claimed he had visited Malegaon, praised the movement, and donated Rs 40,000 via a cheque from the Lalbhai Group to Lok Samiti, an organisation linked to the NBA.
She further stated that the cheque bounced and questioned the relationship between Saxena and the Lalbhai Group. The press note concluded with the statement: “Who among them is more of a ‘patriot’?”
Saxena, claiming that the press note was defamatory, filed a criminal defamation suit against Patkar before a court in Ahmedabad in 2001. The case was transferred to Delhi in 2003 following directions from the Supreme Court.
After more than two decades of legal proceedings, on 24 May, 2024, a Delhi magistrate court convicted Patkar of criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patkar was subsequently sentenced to five months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs 10 lakh as compensation to be paid to Saxena. The trial court held that Patkar deliberately made malicious statements intended to defame Saxena, including allegations that he was “mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources before Bill Gates and Wolfensohn” and acting as “an agent of the Government of Gujarat”.
Patkar challenged the conviction before the Saket sessions court, which on 2 April this year upheld the trial court’s judgment. However, on 8 April, the sessions court granted her the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Her jail sentence was suspended, and she was ordered to submit a probation bond of Rs 25,000 and deposit Rs 1 lakh as compensation to Saxena, a reduction from the original Rs 10 lakh fine.
Despite the relief, Patkar failed to comply with the court’s directive to furnish the probation bond and pay the compensation. As a result, on 23 April, the Saket court issued a non-bailable warrant against her. The court observed that Patkar deliberately violated the sentencing order and failed to appear before the court or accept the terms of probation.
A non-bailable warrant, typically issued when there is a risk of the accused evading legal proceedings, allows for immediate arrest. Patkar was taken into custody by Delhi Police but released the same day after fulfilling the bond and payment conditions. Her lawyer told the court she had been en route to comply with the court order when she was arrested.
Meanwhile, Patkar approached the Delhi High Court, challenging both her conviction and the sessions court’s order requiring her periodic appearance before the trial court. The high court, as interim relief, suspended her sentence and granted her bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000.
Patkar is widely known for her work on environmental and human rights issues, particularly through the NBA. She has also been active in public interest litigation, challenging projects like the Lavasa Hill City in Maharashtra and opposing slum demolitions in Mumbai.
Ruchi Bhattar is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Medha Patkar vs Delhi L-G: What’s the 24-year-old case about & why was she arrested