The Supreme Court has provided no relief to social activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed 25 years ago by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena. The court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order, upholding Medha Patkar's conviction and sentence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of prominent Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed on November 24, 2000. The lawsuit was filed by the then Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, VK Saxena, who at the time was the head of a non-governmental organization in Gujarat. The Supreme Court did not grant Patkar any relief, upholding the Delhi High Court's order, but the fine was quashed.
Defamation Allegations and Supreme Court Ruling
The case began in 2000 when VK Saxena filed a defamation suit against Medha Patkar. The allegation was that Patkar made statements against him that were not only defamatory but were deliberately made to spread a negative perception about him. Patkar had alleged that Saxena was mortgaging Gujarat's resources to foreign interests, which the court considered a serious attack against him.
On July 1, 2024, the magistrate court found Medha Patkar guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC and sentenced her to five months imprisonment and a fine of ₹10 lakh. The sessions court, upon challenging this decision, dismissed Patkar's appeal on April 2, 2025, and upheld the conviction.
Probation and High Court Order
On April 8, 2025, the sessions court released Patkar on probation of good conduct on a probation bond of ₹25,000. Along with this, a condition was also imposed on her to deposit a fine of ₹1 lakh. Patkar then challenged this order in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court, after investigation, did not find any irregularity in the lower court's order. The court said that Patkar's conviction and sentence had been given due legal consideration.
However, the High Court amended the probation condition, clarifying that Patkar would have to appear in the lower court every three months, in which she could be physically present, appear via video conference, or be represented by her lawyer.
Supreme Court's Final Decision
In this case, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh dismissed Medha Patkar's petition, upholding the Delhi High Court's order. The Supreme Court said that it would not interfere with the High Court's decision in this matter. However, the court quashed the fine imposed by Patkar's lawyer. With this decision of the Supreme Court, Patkar's conviction and sentence remain intact, but the removal of the fine has reduced her financial burden.
This case is an example of the interpretation of defamation laws in India and the legal challenges against social activists. Social activists like Medha Patkar have been actively protesting against the Narmada dam for a long time, and this case before the Indian judiciary raises the question of what should be the boundary between social criticism and defamation.
