The Delhi High Court has upheld the criminal conviction of social activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed against her by the current Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Vinai Kumar Saxena, dating back to 2001. The court also rejected Patkar’s plea seeking to introduce and examine an additional witness to support her case.
Justice Shalinder Kaur, presiding over the matter, observed that Patkar failed to demonstrate any procedural errors in the trial court proceedings that led to her conviction. The High Court’s ruling effectively affirms the trial court’s findings against the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader.
However, in a slight relief to Patkar, the court modified one of the probationary conditions imposed earlier. The trial court had mandated that she appear before the court once every three months. The High Court has now allowed her to attend future proceedings either in person or via video conferencing through her legal representative.
Background of the Case
The defamation case stems from a press note issued by Patkar in 2001, which allegedly contained derogatory remarks against VK Saxena. At the time, Saxena was the head of the Ahmedabad-based NGO, National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), and not yet the LG of Delhi.
In her press statement, Patkar had accused Saxena of being a “coward” and “not a patriot.” She also alleged that Saxena had issued a cheque of ₹40,000 to the Narmada Bachao Andolan, which later bounced due to the non-existence of the bank account. The note implied financial misconduct and insincerity on Saxena’s part.
Following these remarks, Saxena filed a criminal defamation complaint against Patkar, asserting that her statements had damaged his reputation.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the legal process had been followed correctly and saw no justification for revisiting the evidentiary phase of the trial. “The appellant has failed to show any procedural irregularity or miscarriage of justice,” the court stated.
The judgment marks a significant moment in a case that has spanned over two decades, pitting a high-profile activist against a current constitutional authority.
