NEW DELHI: Social activist and Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar has gone to the Delhi High Court to challenge her conviction in a criminal defamation case filed by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.
The case is over 20 years old and began in 2001 when Saxena, then heading an NGO in Ahmedabad, filed a complaint against Patkar.
The issue started with a press note Patkar released on November 25, 2000, titled “True Face of Patriot.” In it, she accused Saxena of trying to donate
`40,000 to her movement with a cheque that bounced. She also called him a “coward,” “not a patriot,” and hinted that he was involved in illegal hawala transactions. The court later said these statements were meant to harm Saxena’s public image and were clearly defamatory.
Last year, a Metropolitan Magistrate found Patkar guilty under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal defamation. She was sentenced to five months in jail and fined `10 lakh. However, she got bail and her sentence was paused while her appeal was being considered.
On April 2, the trial court dismissed her appeal and ordered her to appear in person to discuss sentencing. Patkar has now challenged this order too, saying the trial court no longer had the power to issue new directions after rejecting her appeal. Her lawyer argued in the High Court that the trial court had become functus officio, meaning it had finished its job and couldn’t pass more orders.
Patkar’s lawyer asked for a short delay to submit important documents and earlier court decisions. However, the Delhi High Court said the request seemed too early. It suggested that Patkar could ask the trial court to allow her to attend the hearing through video conferencing instead of appearing in person.
The HC said she is free to file such a request, and the trial court should decide on it according to the law. The sentencing hearing in the trial court is scheduled for Tuesday.
In its original judgment convicting Patkar, the trial court had ruled that her statements were not only defamatory on their face but were intentionally crafted to malign Saxena’s reputation. The court concluded that the remarks were made with malicious intent and caused significant damage to Saxena’s public standing.