Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Medha Patkar In Criminal Defamation Case Filed By Delhi LG V.K. Saxena; Removes Penalty of ₹1 lakh
|Delhi LG V.K. Saxena had filed the complaint alleging that activist Medha Patkar made defamatory statements against him in a 2000 press note titled “True Face of a Patriot”, which, he claimed, damaged his reputation and contained false allegations.
The Supreme Court today declined to interfere with the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena. The case arises from a press note dated 24 November 2000, titled “True Face of a Patriot – Response to an Advertisement”, which Saxena alleged was defamatory.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Medha Patkar, submitted that the prosecution had relied on an electronic record that was produced without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. He argued that the Trial Court had found that the author of that document had not been proved and therefore the chain of evidence remained incomplete.
Referring to the Trial Court’s reasoning, he further submitted, “…whether, from the above evidence, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the press note was issued by the accused. There hasn’t come any direct evidence linking the accused with the press note, though her name is mentioned at the bottom of the note, but there is no proof that she issued the same… the chain of evidence has to be complete… which, till now, is not complete.”
He contended that while the High Court noted the principle that a party relying on a document during cross-examination cannot later object to its admissibility, this did not amount to an admission of authorship.
The second issue raised concerned the reliance placed on an alleged admission in a list of dates” from an earlier petition. Parikh maintained that “it is an error of the court… to convict only on the basis of that particular admission.”
Justice Sundresh stated, “We are not inclined to interfere. Please come to the sentence if there is anything. Supervision order we will take it out.” Counsel requested, “And also the penalty.” When asked about the amount, he replied, “One lakh.”
Pronouncing its order, the Bench recorded, “We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the penalty imposed stands set aside and we further clarify that the supervision order will not be given effect.”
The Delhi High Court on July 29, 2025, upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena. The case arises from a Press Note dated 24 November 2000, titled “True Face of a Patriot – Response to an Advertisement”, which the Trial Court and the Sessions Court found she had authored and caused to be published in retaliation to an advertisement issued by Saxena on November 10, 2000.
The Press Note stated that the advertisement was “defamatory for both myself and my colleague Chittaroopa as well as a people’s movement, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) in more than one way”. The appellate court observed that “there is no doubt that the said NBA Press Note… was authored and issued personally by Medha Patkar” and that, by calling Saxena “coward” and “not a patriot,” it sought to discredit him.
On July 1, 2024, the Trial Court sentenced Patkar to five months’ simple imprisonment and directed her to pay 10 lakh compensation, with an additional three months’ simple imprisonment in default. On April 8, 2025, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by releasing her on probation subject to conditions, including payment of 1 lakh as compensation, execution of a probation bond, submission of supervision reports, and quarterly court appearances.
In her criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Patkar contended that there was no proof she had authored or sent the Press Note, that the electronic records lacked proper Section 65B certification, and that the courts below erred in relying on an “admission” from a withdrawn 2018 petition. The High Court rejected these arguments, noting that she had admitted during cross-examination that the Press Note formed part of the original defamation complaint, and that the “list of dates” in the earlier case could be read as an admission.
Justice Shalinder Kaur concluded that “the essential ingredients of Section 499 of the IPC are clearly made out… the Press Note is defamatory in nature” and found “no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity” in the findings of the courts below.
Cause Title: Medha Patkar v. V. K. Saxena (SLP (Crl) No. 11953 of 2025)