SC refuses to interfere with Medha Patkar’s conviction in defamation case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in the 2001 criminal defamation case filed against her by V.K. Saxena — the now Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar, challenging a Delhi High Court order that had maintained her conviction in the matter.

However, in a bit of relief to Patkar, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench set aside the penalty imposed and directed that the supervision order would not be enforced.

Earlier, on July 29, the Delhi High Court upheld Medha Patkar’s conviction, rejecting her revision plea against a Saket court order that had dismissed her criminal appeal.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Patkar failed to point out any procedural defect that would amount to a miscarriage of justice in the case, noting that her conviction was based on due consideration of the evidence and applicable law.

However, Justice Shalinder Kaur had modified the probation condition requiring her to appear before the trial court every three months, permitting her to appear virtually or be represented by an advocate.

In 2001, Saxena filed two defamation suits against Patkar — one over allegedly derogatory remarks made during a television interview, and the other concerning a press statement. Senior Advocate Gajinder Kumar presented Saxena’s case in the court.

The legal tussle arose from an earlier suit filed by Patkar in 2000, accusing Saxena of publishing defamatory advertisements targeting her and the NBA.

In July last year, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma sentenced Patkar to five months in jail and ordered her to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to Saxena.

On appeal, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh of the Saket Court upheld Patkar’s conviction but ordered her to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to prior deposit of a compensation amount of Rs 1 lakh, which will be released in favour of the complainant (Saxena).

It had opined that an insensitive approach towards others’ reputation and abuse of the right to free speech must be met with criminal sanction, adding that Patkar, being herself a person of repute, must know the value of one’s reputation and how defamation can result in loss of face and public esteem of the victim.

–IANS