SC Affirms Medha Patkar’s Conviction In Delhi LG VK Saxena’s Defamation Case; Sets Aside Penalty

Delhi LG VK Saxena

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed in 2001 by Vinai Kumar Saxena, now the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

While upholding the conviction, a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the ₹1 lakh penalty imposed by the trial court. Patkar had earlier been spared jail under probation, but the top court modified the probation order by replacing the requirement for periodic appearances with a direction to furnish bonds instead.

Arguments Before The Court

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Patkar, argued that the appellate court had disbelieved two key witnesses and that the email presented as crucial evidence lacked certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it inadmissible.

The bench, however, expressed unwillingness to interfere with the conviction, agreeing only to waive the penalty. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Saxena, pressed for at least a token fine.

Court’s Earlier Ruling

On July 29, 2025, the Delhi High Court upheld Patkar’s conviction in the case, which originated when Saxena headed the Ahmedabad-based National Council for Civil Liberties. The court found no legal or procedural flaws in the trial court’s judgment and dismissed Patkar’s appeals against her conviction and sentence.

It also rejected her plea to summon an additional witness in her separate defamation case against Saxena, while slightly relaxing a probation condition—allowing her to fulfil the requirement of appearing every three months either in person, via video conference, or through her lawyer.

Case Background

The dispute dates back to November 25, 2000, when Patkar issued a press note titled “True Face of Patriot”. In it, she accused Saxena of involvement in hawala transactions, claimed he had given the NBA a cheque of ₹40,000 that bounced due to a non-existent account, and described him as a “coward” and “not a patriot.”

In April 2025, the trial court convicted Patkar under Section 500 of the IPC, ruling that her statements were deliberate and malicious, intended to harm Saxena’s reputation and credit. It labelled the remarks defamatory per se, saying they were designed to provoke negative public perceptions.

That same month, the Delhi High Court suspended her sentence and granted bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000.

With court’s decision, Patkar’s conviction remains intact, but she will not have to pay the ₹1 lakh fine. The court’s modification of the probation terms means she will now only need to furnish bonds, without mandatory periodic appearances.