News Brief
SC Upholds Medha Patkar's Conviction In Defamation Case Filed By LG Saxena: Here's All You Need To Know
Activist Medha Patkar (Epsajeevan/Wikimedia Commons)
The Supreme Court on Monday (11 August) declined to overturn the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case dating back to 2001.
The complaint was filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, now Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, when he headed the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties.
While upholding the conviction, a Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh removed the Rs 1 lakh penalty imposed earlier and eased the probation conditions.
Patkar will now be required to furnish bonds rather than make periodic court appearances. The trial court had already spared her imprisonment, applying probation instead.
Background of the Dispute
The case stems from a press note Patkar issued on 25 November 2000, titled “true face of patriot”. She accused Saxena of hawala dealings, issuing the NBA a cheque for Rs 40,000 that allegedly bounced due to a non-existent account, and described him as a “coward” and “not a patriot”.
In April 2025, the trial court found Patkar guilty under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that her statements were deliberate, malicious, and defamatory per se.
The court held that they had the clear intent to harm Saxena’s reputation. Her sentence was suspended by the Delhi High Court the same month, with bail granted on a Rs 25,000 bond.
Patkar challenged the conviction before the High Court, questioning the admissibility of an email cited as crucial evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and pointing out that two key witnesses had been disbelieved.
In July 2025, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, rejecting her plea to summon an additional witness in a separate defamation suit she had filed against Saxena.
Defamation Law in Context
Under Indian law, criminal defamation (Section 499 and 500 IPC) punishes making false statements intended to damage someone’s reputation.
Unlike civil defamation, which seeks monetary damages, criminal defamation can result in imprisonment, fines, or both, though courts may grant probation in certain cases.
The matter has now effectively closed on conviction, with the Supreme Court signalling no interference in findings of fact, while softening the sentence’s financial and procedural terms.
