On August 11, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in a 2001 criminal defamation case filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
However, a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Rs 1 lakh fine imposed on Patkar. While the trial court had spared her a jail sentence by granting probation, the Supreme Court modified the probation terms, removing the requirement for her periodic appearances and instead allowing her to submit bonds.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing Medha Patkar, argued that the appellate court had rejected the testimony of two key witnesses. He also contended that the email presented as crucial evidence lacked certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it inadmissible.
Despite these submissions, the bench expressed its unwillingness to overturn the conviction but agreed to set aside the monetary penalty. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Vinai Kumar Saxena, urged the court to impose at least a token penalty on Patkar.
On July 29, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed in 2001 by Vinai Kumar Saxena, who was then serving as the head of the Ahmedabad-based NGO, National Council for Civil Liberties.
Background
The case stems from a press note issued by Medha Patkar on November 25, 2000, titled “True Face of Patriot.” In the note, she accused Vinai Kumar Saxena of involvement in hawala transactions, claimed he had given the Narmada Bachao Andolan a Rs 40,000 cheque that bounced due to a non-existent account, and described him as a coward and unpatriotic.
In April 2025, the trial court convicted Medha Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), concluding that her statements were deliberate, malicious, and aimed at damaging Vinai Kumar Saxena’s reputation. The court held that the remarks were inherently defamatory and intended to provoke negative perceptions. Later that month, the Delhi High Court suspended her sentence and granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000.
Medha Patkar challenged both her conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court, as well as the trial court’s decision to reject her request to summon an additional witness in her separate defamation case against Vinai Kumar Saxena. On July 29, 2025, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding no illegality or significant error in the trial court’s judgment. It held that Patkar had failed to demonstrate any procedural flaw or legal mistake that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
While the High Court declined to interfere with the sentence, it modified a probation condition that required Patkar to appear before the trial court every three months. The court allowed her to comply with this condition either in person, via video conference, or through her lawyer. It ultimately dismissed her appeals against both the conviction and the denial of her plea to examine an additional witness.
Comments