Supreme Court Rejects Medha Patkar’s Plea In Defamation Case

In a significant legal setback for Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar, the Delhi Saket Court has upheld her conviction in a criminal defamation case filed by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena.

The court dismissed Patkar’s plea challenging her five-month simple imprisonment and Rs 10 lakh fine, reinforcing the lower court’s ruling.

Legal Proceedings & Court’s Ruling

The Additional Sessions Judge, Vishal Singh, reserved the verdict on March 5 after hearing arguments from both sides and ultimately rejected Patkar’s appeal.

The Saket Court had earlier found her guilty of defamation and sentenced her to five months in jail along with a hefty monetary penalty.

Patkar had moved the Sessions Court against this decision, seeking relief.

During the hearing, legal representatives for Lieutenant Governor Saxena argued that Patkar’s appeal was not maintainable and should be dismissed.

They further pointed out procedural lapses, stating that Patkar had not signed her petition. The court, in response, instructed Patkar to submit a signed copy via official email.

Origins Of The Defamation Case

The case dates back to November 25, 2000, when VK Saxena filed a defamation complaint against Medha Patkar in an Ahmedabad court.

Saxena’s petition referenced a press note issued by Patkar, titled Deshbhakt ka Asli Chehra (The True Face of a Patriot).

The statement accused Saxena of involvement in alleged financial irregularities and falsely claimed that he had issued a Rs 40,000 cheque to the Narmada Bachao Andolan, which later bounced due to a non-existent account.

Patkar’s press note further labeled Saxena as a ‘coward’ and ‘not a patriot’, statements that the court deemed as deliberate attempts to malign his reputation.

The verdict noted that her remarks were intended to tarnish Saxena’s public image and credibility.

Judicial Observations & Verdict

The court emphasized that Patkar’s statements were not only defamatory but also aimed at fueling negative perceptions.

The judgment highlighted that defamation laws exist to protect individuals from baseless attacks that can damage their personal and professional standing.

The ruling also addressed broader concerns, stating that the allegations against Saxena-suggesting he had compromised Gujarat’s resources for foreign interests-constituted a direct assault on his integrity and public service record.

With this decision, Patkar has exhausted her legal options at the Sessions Court level, though she may seek redress from higher judicial forums.

The case underscores the growing legal scrutiny on public figures making unverified allegations and the judiciary’s stance on protecting reputations from unwarranted defamation.

As the legal battle concludes at this stage, the ruling sets a precedent for future defamation cases involving high-profile individuals, emphasizing accountability in public statements and allegations.

Also Read: Supreme Court To Review Waqf Bill Amid Rising Opposition