The judgment identified ten serious flaws in Patkar’s complaint, including abrupt reversals in testimony, fabricated claims of witness contact, and failure to establish personal defamation — findings that proved decisive in Saxena’s acquittal.
BY PC Bureau
February 25, 2026: A Delhi court’s acquittal of V. K. Saxena in the 25-year-old defamation case filed by Medha Patkar may have formally ended one of India’s longest-running activist-led legal battles, but the court’s sharp observations on Patkar’s testimony and conduct have opened a broader debate about the credibility of her claims and activism.
While the Saket Court’s January 29, 2026 verdict cleared Saxena of criminal defamation charges, it went significantly further than a routine acquittal. In its detailed judgment, the court raised serious concerns about contradictions, inconsistencies, and reliability in Patkar’s testimony — observations that could have lasting implications beyond the confines of the case itself.
Here is a summary of the court’s most damaging observations:
Acquittal Based on Failure to Prove Case
The court held unequivocally that Patkar had “failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt,” acquitting Saxena under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The case stemmed from a controversial advertisement published in The Indian Express in November 2000, titled “True Face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan,” when Saxena was heading the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).
The court found no evidence that Saxena had published any imputation specifically targeting Patkar personally with intent to harm her reputation — a key legal requirement for criminal defamation.
However, the judgment did not stop at examining the legal threshold of defamation. Instead, it scrutinised Patkar’s own conduct and testimony in detail, making observations that went directly to the heart of her credibility.
1. Gross Inconsistencies in Patkar’s Testimony
The court found fundamental contradictions between Patkar’s complaint and her statements during cross-examination. Initially, she demonstrated detailed knowledge of a controversial document linked to the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), describing and defending its contents. However, during cross-examination, she denied even seeing the document or knowing its origins.
The court ruled that this inconsistency “goes to the root of the matter” and seriously impaired her credibility.
READ: Trump Claims He Saved 35 M Lives by Defusing Indo-Pak War
2. Abrupt Change of Stand Appeared to Be Litigation Convenience
The court concluded that Patkar’s sudden shift from explaining the document to denying knowledge of it was not credible. Her earlier statements clearly assumed familiarity with the document.
The judge viewed her later denial as an “afterthought,” suggesting her position had changed purely to suit the legal defence strategy rather than reflecting the truth.
3. Plea of Ignorance Contradicted Her Own Earlier Statements
The court found that Patkar’s claim of ignorance was contradicted by her own earlier explanations and interpretations of the document.
Her attempt to justify its contents earlier demonstrated clear awareness. The court viewed her later denial as unreliable and inconsistent with her prior assertions.
4. Failure to Establish Any Personal Defamation
The court held that the allegedly defamatory advertisement did not directly accuse Patkar personally. Instead, it focused on the organisation and specific individuals other than her.
Since criminal defamation requires proof of direct personal harm to reputation, her inability to establish personal imputation proved fatal to her case.
5. Failure to Qualify as an “Aggrieved Person” Under Law
Because the alleged imputations were directed at the organisation rather than Patkar individually, the court ruled she did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under Section 198 CrPC.
Indirect reputational harm through association was deemed insufficient to sustain a criminal defamation complaint.
6. NBA’s Lack of Legal Structure Weakened Her Claim
The court observed that the Narmada Bachao Andolan functioned as an informal movement rather than a legally defined organisation with fixed membership or corporate identity.
This lack of formal legal status weakened Patkar’s attempt to claim defamation on behalf of the movement.
7. False Claim Regarding Witness Contact
Patkar claimed that a key witness, Dr. Anoop Saraya, had personally contacted her and informed her about reputational harm caused by the advertisement.
However, the witness categorically denied any such interaction. The court found this contradiction highly damaging, noting it undermined her veracity.
8. Case Marred by Irreconcilable Contradictions and Lack of Proof
The court concluded that the prosecution suffered from irreconcilable contradictions and lacked credible evidence proving intent to defame Patkar personally.
As a result, she failed to meet the criminal law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Mischaracterisation of Advertisement’s Content as Personal Attack
Patkar argued that references to financial transactions in the advertisement were personal accusations against her.
The court rejected this interpretation, finding that the advertisement referred to organisational issues rather than personal misconduct attributable to her.
10. Reliance on Indirect and Associative Harm Was Legally Insufficient
The court held that reputational harm arising indirectly from criticism of an organisation cannot automatically be treated as personal defamation.
Even Patkar’s own witnesses failed to establish direct personal accusations against her, further weakening her claim.
While the acquittal legally vindicates Saxena, the court’s observations may have broader implications for public perceptions of Patkar’s activism.
Legal Closure, But Questions Remain
For decades, Patkar has been one of India’s most prominent activist figures, closely associated with environmental and social justice movements. However, the court’s findings — particularly its emphasis on contradictions, unreliable testimony, and failure to establish personal harm — raise uncomfortable questions about the credibility of claims made in this specific legal context.
The judgment does not directly assess her activism or broader public work. But its conclusions about the reliability of her testimony in a case she initiated inevitably cast a shadow over the strength of the allegations she pursued in court.
With Saxena’s acquittal, the legal battle that began in 2000 has finally concluded. Yet the court’s unusually pointed observations ensure that the verdict will resonate beyond the immediate dispute.
While the dismissal of the defamation complaint brings closure from a legal standpoint, the judgment’s detailed critique of contradictions and credibility may shape how this episode is viewed — not merely as a failed prosecution, but as a case where the court found the complainant’s own testimony insufficiently reliable to sustain her claims.
In that sense, the acquittal marks both an end and a beginning: the end of a prolonged legal dispute, and the start of a broader public reassessment of one of India’s most prominent activist-led cases.
