NEW DELHI: Social activist and Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar has moved the Delhi High Court against the dismissal of her plea seeking to introduce and examine an additional witness in her long-standing defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena.
Justice Shalinder Kaur, after hearing the matter on Thursday, issued a notice to Saxena, seeking his response. The court also noted that the case has been pending for 24 years. However, Patkar’s counsel countered that there had been no delay from their end. During the hearing, her counsel urged the court to stay the recording of Saxena’s statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), scheduled for the next day.
However, the court refrained from granting any such relief at this stage. Section 313 of CrPC provides an accused with an opportunity to explain any incriminating evidence presented against them during the trial. The case will now be heard in May. Patkar had approached the HC challenging a March 18 order of the trial court, which had dismissed her plea to introduce a fresh witness. The trial court observed that the request appeared to be a tactic to delay proceedings rather than a genuine necessity.
The origins of the legal battle date back to 2000, when Patkar sued Saxena, who was then heading an Ahmedabad-based NGO, the Council for Civil Liberties, over advertisements allegedly defaming her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Saxena, in turn, filed a counter-defamation case against Patkar, accusing her of maligning him in a press note dated November 25, 2000, titled “True Face of Patriot.” Patkar had allegedly referred to Saxena as a coward rather than a patriot.
This counter-case resulted in Patkar being sentenced to five months of simple imprisonment last year, though her sentence was later suspended, and she was granted bail. In her plea, Patkar argued that she had the right to call upon any witness under Section 254(1) of CrPC to strengthen her case. She maintained that there was no legal bar preventing her from doing so. However, the trial court found no merit in her argument, ruling that she had already examined all the witnesses listed in her complaint.