SC Refuses to Intervene in Medha Patkar’s Defamation Case Against Delhi LG
The case traces back to 2000, when Medha Patkar filed a complaint alleging that an advertisement published by Delhi LG VK Saxena in a newspaper on November 10, 2000, defamed her
Supreme Court Refuses to Intervene in Medha Patkar’s Defamation Case Against Delhi LG
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding a Magistrate Court order that dismissed social activist Medha Patkar’s plea seeking examination of an additional witness in her defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena.
The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed Patkar’s plea after her counsel sought to withdraw it, noting that the High Court’s ruling required no intervention.
The case traces back to 2000, when Patkar filed a complaint alleging that an advertisement published by Saxena in a newspaper on November 10, 2000, defamed her. She had contended that the High Court erred in upholding the Magistrate’s order, which had held that a witness not listed under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be examined under another provision.
Advocate Abhimanue Shrestha represented Patkar, who had argued that the Magistrate was mandated to consider all evidence presented in support of the complainant.
It is to be noted that on August 11, the Bench had confirmed the criminal defamation conviction of Medha Patkar in a 2001 case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena but set aside the Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on her by the trial court. The Court was hearing an Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Delhi High Court judgment, which upheld the criminal defamation conviction of Patkar, in the case filed by the Delhi LG in 2001, but had amended her probation conditions to permit virtual appearances or representation. While removing the supervision order and waiving the penalty, the Court confirmed the conviction. It also extended time for furnishing the bond by two weeks’.
Notably, on July 15, the High Court had reserved its verdict on the plea filed by Patkar challenging her conviction and sentence.
Court had reserved the verdict after briefly hearing arguments made by Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing on behalf of Patkar and Advocate Gajinder Kumar representing LG V.K. Saxena.
In the case, Patkar was convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to up to 5 months in simple imprisonment along with compensation. The case stemmed from a suit filed by Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena claiming that Patkar had made defamatory statements on television aimed at ruining Saxena's reputation.
In the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Parikh submitted that, per the provision, they can examine witnesses who were not included in the original witness list. On April 25, the court granted interim relief to Patkar by suspending her sentence after she was arrested for failing to comply with the probation conditions set by the Sessions Court.
It is to be noted that on April 23, a Delhi Court had issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against Medha Patkar for failing to appear and comply with the sentencing order passed in the criminal defamation case. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh of the Saket Courts observed that Patkar had deliberately failed to comply with the April 8 sentencing order, which had granted her the benefit of probation subject to furnishing compensation.
Patkar was convicted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal defamation in a case dating back to 2001. The case was filed by V.K. Saxena, who was then heading an Ahmedabad-based NGO, alleging that Patkar had made defamatory statements against him in a press note titled "True Face of Patriot." She was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and directed to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation, with the sentence suspended pending appeal. However, she failed to adhere to the Court’s directions for availing the benefit of probation.
Case Title: Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena
Hearing Date: September 8, 2025
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma