Supreme Court affirms activist Medha Patkar’s conviction in Delhi LG Saxena’s defamation case, waives off penalty
While the top Court affirmed Patkar’s conviction, it set aside a 1 lakh rupees penalty imposed by the trial court in this case stemming from a statement made in 2000-2001.
Parmod Kumar
11 August 2025
THE SUPREME COURT TODAY refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s July 29 order upholding the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case lodged in 2001 by Vinai Kumar Saxena, then head of the National Council for Civil Liberties (‘NCCL’) and presently the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
While the bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh affirmed Patkar’s conviction, they did set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on her by the trial court. The top Court also modified the probation order, which had required her periodic appearance, and instead permitted her to furnish bonds.
The trial court had earlier exempted her from a jail sentence by granting probation.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Patkar, argued that the appellate court had disbelieved two key witnesses and that the email projected as crucial evidence was inadmissible as it lacked certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The bench, however, expressed reluctance to disturb the conviction, though it agreed to waive the penalty.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Saxena, submitted that at least a token penalty should be imposed on Patkar.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Saxena, submitted that at least a token penalty should be imposed on Patkar.
The dispute stems from alleged defamatory statements made by Patkar in 2000–2001, against Saxena while he was heading the Ahmedabad-based NGO NCCL. Saxena filed a criminal defamation complaint under Sections 499–500 IPC before a Delhi court, asserting that her allegations were false, malicious, and harmed his reputation.
In 2006, the trial court convicted Patkar, granting her probation instead of a jail sentence. Patkar’s appeal to the Delhi High Court contended that her statements were made in good faith and in the public interest, falling under exceptions to criminal defamation, and that crucial electronic evidence was inadmissible under Section 65B.
On July 29, 2024, the High Court dismissed her appeal, holding that the remarks were defamatory and upheld both the conviction and the ₹1 lakh penalty. Patkar then approached the Supreme Court, resulting in today’s order affirming the conviction but removing the fine and easing her probation terms.