VK Saxena Seeks Maximum Punishment For Activist Medha Patkar In Defamation Case

Delhi's Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on Thursday through his lawyers, requested the concerned court to award maximum punishment to Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed against her.

Mr Saxena, who at the time was the president of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an NGO, had filed the defamation case in 2001 when, according to him, Ms Patkar defamed him through a press release issued by her.

The Saket District Court of Delhi recently convicted Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar in a 2001 defamation case filed by VK Saxena, who is now Delhi's Lieutenant Governor.

On Thursday, advocate Gajender appeared for Mr Saxena and submitted that persistent defiance of the law is in the character of the accused. She deserves stringent punishment to deter the accused as no respect for the law is evident on records. The accused is a habitual offender.

Another repeat offence of the same nature, ie. defamation, was committed by the accused in the year 2006 against the complainant, and the same is pending adjudication before this Court.

The accused doesn't care about social control and defies all ethical and moral justifications, the lawyer added while arguing.

Meanwhile, Advocate Abhimanyu Shreshth appeared for Medha Patkar sought minimum punishment for her, and stated that she was born in 1954. Now she is 70. She has certain ailments. The discharge summary was also placed on record for the court's consideration. She has an amicable record of winning National and international awards which speaks a different story.

The lawyer requests the court to release her on probation for good conduct.

The Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma on Thursday after noting down the submissions fixed the matter for June 7, and sought a Victim Assessment Report from the District Legal Service authority. The Court also sought an affidavit from Medha Patkar disclosing her income and Assets.

Last week while convicting Medha Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), the Judge said it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/Medha Patkar published the imputations with the intent and knowledge that they would harm the reputation of the complainant and, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. She is hereby convicted of the same.

The court further stated that it is clear that the accused's actions were deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing the complainant's good name, and have indeed caused substantial harm to his standing and credit in the eyes of the public.

The accused's statements, calling the complainant a coward, not a patriot, and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions, were not only defamatory per se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions.

The court further stated that the accusation that the complainant was mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service.

It is evident that the accused harboured a clear intention to defame the complainant through her press note, given the deliberate and calculated nature of her statements. By explicitly stating that the complainant was "pained with hawala transactions," she aimed to associate him with illegal and unethical financial dealings, thereby inflicting significant harm to his reputation and standing. This assertion, without providing any substantive evidence, was a clear attempt to malign his financial integrity and create a public perception of wrongdoing.

Ms Patkar and Mr Saxena have been embroiled in a legal battle since 2000 after she filed a suit against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Mr Saxena was then the chief of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an Ahmedabad-based NGO.

In the matter, the complainant, VK Saxena, was the president of an organisation, namely the National Council of Civil Liberties, which at the relevant time was involved in issues pertaining to the public interest, exposing unfair trade practices adopted by all companies and also bringing to 4 large scales, evasion of sales tax in interstate transactions and other allied public interest matters. The complainant's organisation was resolute in ensuring that the Sardar Sarovar Project, which was envisaged for a long time for the distribution of water in rural areas of Gujarat, gets timely completed.

The Court noted that, while the complainant was involved in activities, ensuring the timely completion of the Sardar Sarovar Project for larger public interest and benefit, the accused issued a press note in English dated November 25, 2000, titled "true face of patriot in which she published "VK Saxena, one who is pained by the Hawala transactions himself, came to Malegaon, praised NBA, and gave a cheque of 40,000. Lok Samiti naively and promptly sent the receipt and the letter, which shows honesty and good record keeping than anything else. But the cheque could not be encashed and got bounced. On inquiry, the bank reported the account does not exist.". The check and press note came from Lalbhai Group. What is the connection between Lalbhai Group and VK Saxena? Who among them is more patriotic?

The complainant, VK Saxena in his complaint alleges that the contents of the above-stated allegations contained innuendos, allegations, and imputations that are per se false, non-existent, such that the words are intended to be read, made, and published concerning the complainant with an intention to harm and knowing and having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the compliment.

The complainant alleged that the ironical expressions and imputations made by the accused directly upon him were having a tendency and intention to lower his moral and intellectual character in the estimation of others. He alleged that the allegations of the accused lowered his credit amongst the general public of being in the state, generally considered disgraceful.

The complainant alleges that the statements noted above made by the accused defamed him in public at large and injured his character.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)