In a case filed in 2001 by Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena against the environmental activist, the court issued the ruling on Tuesday.
The case of Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena against social activist Medha Patkar on defamation charges has been confirmed by the Delhi High Court. The case arose from a press note released by Patkar in 2000, where she addressed Saxena in reportedly defamatory terms when he was still a high-profile critic of her Narmada Bachao Andolan movement.
“True Facts of a Patriot – Response to an Advertisement” is the title of the press note issued by Patkar, which Reed Saxena accused of giving faulty cheque of ₹40,000, directly linking dishonesty to the character of Saxena, who later filed a criminal complaint, claiming the statements were false and damaging his reputation.
After examining the matter in detail, a Delhi magistrate court held Patkar guilty under Section 500 of the IPC, dealing with criminal defamation, and was sentenced in May 2024. The court sentenced her to five months simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10 lakh as compensation; the sentence was, however, stayed so that she could later be granted probation.
Apart from rejecting all other pleas, the court modified the conditions of probation. In keeping with the latest turn of events, Justice Shalinder Kaur of the Delhi High Court declared that there were no defects in procedures followed by the lower courts and rejected the pleas of jurisdictional lapses made by Patkar. In such instances, limited relief will be accorded in the form of modified probation terms.
What is the case against her?
Patkar was the target of a slander lawsuit brought by LG VK Saxena in 2001. Saxena was the Chief of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an NGO based in Ahmedabad, at the time of the case.The action was brought after the activist called Saxena a “coward” rather than a patriot in a news release.
The fact that Lok Samiti issued the letter and receipt so quickly and naively demonstrates honesty and solid record keeping more than anything else. However, the check bounced because it could not be cashed. The bank stated that the account does not exist after inquiry.
Patkar, instead of appearing in person once every month before the trial court, is now permitted to present herself every three months, either in person or via video conferencing/through legal representation.
While it was mild in keeping with the advanced age and activist persona, it did not underestimate the seriousness of his conviction. Moreover, the court dismissed Patkar’s application for bringing new witnesses to the courtroom and ruled that her previous appeals are not to be reopened because she has had adequate opportunity to defend herself. Importantly, Patkar recently withdrew a petition filed in the High Court in the hope of filing another since it proved ineffective in reversing conviction.
Indeed, this is now a consequential moment in Patkar’s activism spanning the decades, and most important for a well-recognized reformer of the social-good cause has now set a legal milestone. The High Court indicates that all public figures must face the truth because of their declarations in public, irrespective of their social stature or intent.
