Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11) refused to interfere with the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in the criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant General of Delhi, in 2001.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh however set aside the penalty of Rs 1 lakh imposed on Patkar. The trial court had exempted her from jail sentence by applying probation. The Supreme Court today modified the probation order, which required her periodic appearance, and instead allowed her to furnish bonds.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Patkar, submitted that the appellate court had disbelieved two major witnesses. Also, the email, which was projected as the crucial evidence, was not certified as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible.

The bench however expressed reluctance to interfere with the conviction but agreed to set aside the penalty order. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, for Saxena, submitted that there should be at least a token amount of penalty imposed on Patkar.

On July 29, the Delhi High Court had upheld the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar in the criminal defamation case filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena in 2001. Saxena had then been the chief of the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties.

Background

The case arose from a press note issued by Patkar on November 25, 2000, titled “true face of patriot.” In it, she alleged that Saxena had been involved in hawala transactions, given the NBA a cheque for ₹40,000 that later bounced because the account did not exist, and called him a coward and not a patriot.

In April 2025, the trial court convicted Patkar under Section 500 of the IPC. It found her statements to be deliberate and malicious, intended to damage Saxena's reputation and cause substantial harm to his standing and credit. The court described the remarks as defamatory per se and designed to incite negative perceptions. Patkar's sentence was suspended by the Delhi High Court that same month, with bail granted on a personal bond of ₹25,000.

Patkar challenged the conviction and sentence before the Delhi High Court, along with orders rejecting her plea to summon an additional witness in her own defamation case against Saxena. On July 29, 2025, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding no illegality or material irregularity in the trial court's judgment and holding that Patkar had not shown any procedural defect or legal error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court also declined to interfere with the sentence but modified a probation condition requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once every three months. It allowed her to appear in person, through video conference, or be represented by her lawyer. The court dismissed her pleas against both the trial court's conviction judgment and the rejection of her request to examine the additional witness.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 11953/2025

Case Title – Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena