A Delhi Sessions Court dismisses Medha Patkar’s appeal, confirming her conviction for defamation. The court ruled that Patkar’s press release in 2000 was a deliberate and malicious attack on Saxena’s reputation.
BY Navin Upadhyay
New Delhi, April 2, 2025:
In a major legal triumph for Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, the Sessions Court in Delhi on Wednesday dismissed Medha Patkar’s appeal against her conviction in a long-standing defamation case. The court upheld the earlier ruling of the Trial Court, which found Patkar guilty of defamation and sentenced her to five months in prison along with a fine of Rs. 10 lakh payable to Saxena as compensation.
The Additional District Judge (ADJ) of South-East, Vishal Singh, confirmed the previous conviction and set April 8 as the date for Medha Patkar’s personal appearance for submission on sentencing.
The court ruled that the evidence presented by Saxena proved beyond reasonable doubt that Patkar was responsible for authoring and publishing a defamatory press note on November 24, 2000, which contained damaging allegations against Saxena. The judgment stated:
“The active involvement of Medha Patkar in authoring the Press Note dated 24/11/2000 and its publication in document Ex. CW3/A bearing URL – www.narmada.org/nba-pressreleases/november-2000/response.to.ad.html is writ large on the face of the record. Conversely, the involvement of Medha Patkar is as hidden as an elephant behind an office table. It is only that Medha Patkar used the smoke screen of the virtual world of the Internet to disseminate the Press Note in contention.”
Background of the Case
The defamation case was filed by Saxena in January 2001, in his capacity as the President of the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL). The complaint stemmed from a press release issued by Patkar through the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), in which she accused Saxena of corruption, labeled him a “coward,” and alleged his involvement in hawala transactions.
Also read: Shah Blasts UPA, Vows to Protect Property with Waqf Reforms
After more than two decades of legal proceedings, the Saket Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma ruled in favor of Saxena on May 24, 2024, convicting Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On July 1, 2024, the court sentenced her to five months’ imprisonment along with a monetary penalty.
The Sessions Court upheld the Trial Court’s reasoning, stating that Patkar’s allegations were baseless and intended to tarnish Saxena’s reputation. The court highlighted the seriousness of the defamation, noting:
“Reputation is one of the most valuable assets a person can possess, as it affects both personal and professional relationships and can significantly impact an individual’s standing in society. Medha Patkar’s statements calling Saxena a coward, not a patriot, and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions were not only defamatory per se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions. Furthermore, the accusation that the complainant was mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service.”
The judgment emphasized that Patkar failed to present any evidence to substantiate her claims, leading the court to conclude that her statements were deliberate and malicious:
Also Read: Biren Singh Seeks Probe into Manipur’s “Demographic Shift”
“Saxena’s testimony, supported by depositions of witnesses, demonstrated that the defamatory statements made by Patkar questioned his integrity and patriotism and falsely associated him with activities contrary to his public stance. Patkar failed to provide any evidence to counter these claims, therefore it is clear that Medha Patkar’s action was deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing Saxena’s good name and have indeed caused substantial harm to his standing and credit in the eyes of the public.”
FInd here the order: MEDHA PATKAR VS. V. K. SAXENA
Publication and Dissemination of the Defamatory Statements
The Sessions Court further observed that the defamatory press note was widely circulated online, including on the web portal www.narmada.org and later republished by Rediff.com in Gujarati. The court noted:
“The obvious intention behind the publication of Press Note dated 24/11/2000 through URL www.narmada.org/nba-pressreleases/november-2000/response.to.ad.html was to widely disseminate it to the largest audience possible. It got published by Rediff.com as a Gujarati language article vide http://www.rediff.com/gujarati/2000/nov/24nba.htm (Ex. CW1/B), and it was also referred to in the e-mail Ex. CW1/A sent by CW2 Dilip Gohil to CW1/complainant V. K. Saxena.”
The court dismissed Patkar’s argument that her involvement in the publication was unproven, stating:
“There is no gainsaying that the contents of Press Note Ex. CW3/A (also Ex. CW1/B & Ex. CW1/D2) were factually false and defamatory to the complainant. The complainant never visited Malegaon, nor did he give any cheque to Lok Samiti of NBA. In fact, the complainant actively supported the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project and raised his voice against NBA, which was spearheaded by Medha Patkar. By creating the false impression that the complainant V. K. Saxena gave a cheque to NBA and by calling him a coward and not a patriot, the Press Note sought to discredit the complainant and malign his reputation in the eyes of the public at large.”
Saxena and his organization had been vocal supporters of the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project, which significantly benefited Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. On the other hand, Patkar’s Narmada Bachao Andolan vehemently opposed the project, with allegations of foreign funding influencing their stance.
In November 2000, Saxena published an advertisement exposing NBA’s foreign funding nexus and false reports regarding the dam project. He also highlighted atrocities committed by NBA activists against villagers and tribals who accepted government compensation. In retaliation, Patkar issued her defamatory press release, leading to the defamation lawsuit.
Following the Sessions Court ruling, Saxena’s legal team hailed the verdict as a milestone in upholding individual
reputation and accountability. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that false and malicious allegations do not go unchecked, especially when they are intended to damage an individual’s public standing.
Patkar, who has yet to comment on the verdict, is now required to appear in court on April 8, where further proceedings on her sentencing will take place. With both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court ruling against her, Patkar’s legal options remain limited, and any potential appeal would need to be made at a higher judicial level.
This case serves as a significant precedent for defamation suits in India, particularly in the realm of activism and political discourse. It reaffirms the principle that reputation is a protected right and that baseless allegations made in public forums will be met with stringent legal consequences.
For Saxena, this victory is not just a legal win but a validation of his long-standing stance against the allegations levied against him. For Patkar, the ruling marks a major setback, casting a shadow over her credibility and the methods employed by the Narmada Bachao Andolan in their advocacy.
