On November 25, 2000, a press note was published titled “True Face of Patriot”, in which Medha Patkar alleged that VK Saxena, benign the one who was ‘pained by Hawala transactions’ himself’, came to Malegaon, praised Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and gave a cheque of Rs 40,000’, which ‘could not be encashed and got bounced’. ‘On enquiry, the bank reported the account does not exist’. It further stated that ‘the cheque and press note came from Lalbhai Group’, and questioned if there was ‘connection between Lalbhai Group and VK Saxena’ with the punchline – ‘Who among them is more patriot?’ She went on to state that it was the ‘act of a coward, not a patriot.’
A defamation case was filed by Saxena against her. Twenty three years later, a Delhi Court on May 24, 2024, convicted Medha Patkar in the case, holding her guilty of the offence of criminal defamation.
VK Saxena (Lieutenant Governor of Delhi) was then President of an organisation named National Council of Civil Liberties, which was involved in issues pertaining to public interest. One of their core issues was to ensure that the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project, which was envisaged for long for distribution of water in rural areas, got timely completed.
“Patkar’s statements calling Saxena a “coward, not a patriot”, and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions were not only defamatory per se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions about him”
— Delhi Court on May 31, 2024
On the other hand, Medha Patkar was involved in activities, as per her assertion for protecting the rights of tribals and displaced people, that were inhibiting development and the completion of the Sardar Sarovar Project.
Questions Before the Court
For convicting a person of the offence of defamation, two things are required to be proved. First, whether there were imputations made by the accused against the complainant? Second, whether the imputations were defamatory? Thus, the questions before the Court were threefold. Whether Medha Patkar had issued the press note? By doing so, whether she published the imputation that Saxena had visited Malegaon, praised Narmada Bachao Andolan, had issued a cheque of Rs. 40,000 which came from Lal Bhai Group? And that he was a coward and not a patriot. While doing so, whether she intended to harm or knew or had reason to believe that such imputation will harm Saxena’s reputation?
As regards the first limb of the case, whether the press note was issued by Patkar, the Court analysed and held that not only did the press note mention her name but also she herself admitted that on 24.11.2000, she had issued the press note and made averments that the complainant had come in person to Malegaon, praised NBA and gave a cheque of Rs 40,000.
For commission of offence of defamation, it is essential that imputations are brought before the public and made available to it. Regarding the second issue, whether she had made public imputations that satisfied the above test. The Court held that her own admission wherein she said that she had issued the press note containing the statement that Saxena had gone to Malegaon, praised the NBA, issued a cheque of Rs 40,000 and also stated that the said issue was published in Rediff.com, was of crucial importance to decide this issue. It was held that these statements by her, in her press note, against Saxena are imputations as they convey and attribute such acts upon him. This admission of facts proved beyond reasonable doubt that she, by issuing the press note and thereby making it known and available to the public, had published the above stated imputations.
Decoding Defamation
For an imputation to be called defamation, it is essential that it must have been made with intention or knowledge or having reason to believe that it would cause harm to the reputation of the person about whom it is made. The ingredients of offence of defamation do not require proof of actual harm of reputation being suffered. It would be sufficient if it is proved that imputation was made with the intention or knowledge or with reason to believe that it would harm the reputation.
In this light, the Court adjudicated the final issue, regarding whether she published the said imputation intending to harm or knew or had reason to believe that such imputation will harm Saxena’s reputation. The Court held that the deliberate and calculated statements in the press note revealed that Medha Patkar had a clear intention to defame Saxena through her press note. By explicitly stating that the complainant was “pained with hawala transactions,” she, without providing any substantive evidence, aimed to associate him with illegal and unethical financial dealings, thereby inflicting significant harm to his reputation and standing. This was held to be a clear attempt to malign his financial integrity and create a public perception of wrongdoing.
The Court further castigated her stating that her decision to label the complainant as a ‘coward’ and ‘not a patriot’ and going to the extent of alleging that he was an agent of the Government, was a direct attack on his personal character and loyalty to the nation. Such allegations are grave in the public sphere, where patriotism is highly valued, and questioning someone’s courage and national loyalty can cause irreversible damage to their public image and social standing.
The use of specific, emotionally charged language and her focus on highly sensitive issues such as financial misconduct, personal cowardice, and national loyalty was held to be demonstrating a calculated effort to damage the complainant’s reputation. Her statements were crafted not just to inform but to incite negative sentiments among the public, indicating a clear and malicious intent to defame.
Medha Patkar’s calculated effort to damage reputation of VK Saxena could be seen from her emotionally charged language and her focus on financial misconduct, personal cowardice and national loyalty
The Court also noted that Saxena presented evidence that inquiries and discussions arose regarding his actions following the publication of the press note, thus establishing that Patkar’s accusations damaged his reputation among the general public Concluding the verdict, the Court remarked that reputation is one of the most valuable assets a person can possess, as it affects both personal and professional relationships and can significantly impact an individual’s standing in society. Medha Patkar also failed to provide any evidence to counter the allegations that her imputations were defamatory. In view of the aforesaid, it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Medha Patkar accused published the imputations with the intent and knowledge that they would harm the reputation of V K Saxena and, therefore, committed the offence of criminal defamation, and was convicted accordingly.
Courting Controversies
This was not a solo episode. Medha Patkar is not new to controversies. While in the Sardar Sarovar Project, she along with others in the Narmada Bachao Andolan are alleged to have created hurdles on one count or another stalling the project for three decades. Subsequently, she was active in Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan in 2005 which as per their account was a struggle for housing rights slum-dwellers in Mumbai, started in 2005, against the builders in various rehabilitation and re-development projects.
She also founded the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) which claims its objective to be facilitating unity and providing strength to peoples’ movements in India, fighting against oppression, further questioning the current development model to work towards a just alternative.
Her role is also attributed to protesting and agitating against the Tata Nano Plant in Singur, Nandigram, Lavasa, Kovvada Nuclear Project, Kerala Silver Line Semi-high speed train, Odisha JSW steel project, and the list goes long. On an eerie view of her career of activism, a curious trend emerges – all her work is directed towards questioning and charging on the development projects from one state in India to another.
While it took the Court 23 years to convict her of the offence of defamation, the ball is ultimately in the people’s court to decide for themselves as to whether her career of activism is for the public good and whether her contribution is to further and protect the people’s and the nation’s interest.
Comments