Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar on Monday withdrew her plea before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s order that barred her from examining additional witnesses in a decades-old defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma initially indicated that the matter required closure and was inclined to pass an order preventing both parties from taking the case further. Observing that it was not inclined to interfere with the high court’s decision, the bench noted that Patkar’s attempt to introduce more witnesses was seen as an attempt to prolong proceedings.
Sensing the court’s reluctance, Patkar’s counsel withdrew the plea. The Delhi High Court had earlier upheld a trial court’s decision not to allow additional witnesses, holding that none of the witnesses examined so far had substantiated Patkar’s allegations against Saxena.
The dispute dates back to 2000 when Patkar issued a press release allegedly defamatory to Saxena, then president of the National Council of Civil Liberties, an NGO based in Gujarat. In response, Saxena filed a criminal defamation case against her. Patkar also filed a counter-case.
After prolonged litigation, a magisterial court on July 1, 2024, convicted Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (defamation), sentencing her to five months of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹10 lakh. On April 2, a sessions court upheld her conviction but released her on probation of good conduct on furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 and depositing a fine of ₹1 lakh.
The Delhi High Court, on July 29, also upheld her conviction and sentence. On August 11, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but set aside the penalty imposed. The top court further clarified that Patkar, aged 70, would remain on probation of good conduct without the requirement of supervisory appearances before the trial court.
Saxena’s counsel, senior advocate Maninder Singh along with advocates Gajinder Kumar and Kiran Jai, informed the Supreme Court that the trial court proceedings in the cross-defamation cases between the two parties would continue as scheduled.
