Activist Medha Patkar sentenced to 5-month jail term in 23-year-old defamation case 

On Monday, July 1st, 2024, Delhi’s Saket Court sentenced activist and 70 -year-old Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Activist Medha Patkar to five months imprisonment in a 23-year-old criminal defamation case, filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Raghav Sharma that he would not impose an excessive sentence of one to two years due to her age and health. In addition, the judge granted Patkar’s request to submit an appeal against the verdict by suspending the sentence for one month following Section 389(3) of the CrPC.

On May 24, a Delhi court found activist Medha Patkar guilty of defamation in a case brought in 2001 by Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena. Patkar was also mandated to compensate Saxena with ₹10 lakh ($11,984).

“Truth cannot be defeated. Whatever work we are doing is for the poor, tribals and Dalits… We do not want destruction and displacement in the name of development.

“We do not have any desire to defame anyone. My lawyers will take further legal recourse… We will challenge it (court order),” she said outside the courtroom.

In its eight-page order, the magisterial court said, “While the convict is a distinguished social activist with numerous awards, this status makes her actions even more reprehensible and her respected position in society brings with it a responsibility to uphold the truth and act with integrity.” “The fact that someone of her stature made such false and damaging allegations aggravates her liability, as it undermines public trust and sets a negative example,” the court added.

Further, the court stated that Saxena suffered “profound damage to his reputation, trustworthiness, and social standing” and that Patkar’s age and health issues do not acquit her of the “serious” act.

Reacting to the court’s verdict, the septuagenarian activist said that her lawyers will challenge the order.

“Truth cannot be defeated. Whatever work we are doing is for the poor, tribals and Dalits… We do not want destruction and displacement in the name of development.

“We do not have any desire to defame anyone. My lawyers will take further legal recourse… We will challenge it (court order),” she said outside the courtroom.

In its eight-page order, the magisterial court said, “While the convict is a distinguished social activist with numerous awards, this status makes her actions even more reprehensible and her respected position in society brings with it a responsibility to uphold the truth and act with integrity.” “The fact that someone of her stature made such false and damaging allegations aggravates her liability, as it undermines public trust and sets a negative example,” the court added.

Sentencing Decision and Considerations for Activist Medha Patkar

It said while Patkar’s age and medical condition were factors that necessitated a balanced approach, these did not “absolve her of the serious nature of her offense”.

“The aim is to impose a punishment that is both just and humane. A longer term of imprisonment of one or two years could be disproportionately harsh considering her age and health, and too short a term of one or two months would leave the complainant without justice,” the court said.

“Therefore, a sentence of five months simple imprisonment is appropriate, ensuring that the punishment is significant yet not excessively severe given her circumstances,” it added.

Arguments Presented by Activist Medha Patkar’s Lawyer

Patkar was sued in 2001 by Saxena for allegedly defaming him in a press release headlined “true face of patriot” that was sent out on November 25, 2000. While serving as the Chief of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an NGO located in Ahmedabad, he had filed the petition. For releasing advertising disparaging Patkar and the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Saxena was sued by Patkar. In the meantime, Saxena had also brought two cases against her for disparaging him on TV.

Underlining that sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the offense, the need for deterrence, and the protection of societal values, the judge quoted Lord Denning who had said that “punishment is how society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing; and to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that punishment should be adequate and effective”.

The lawyer for Patkar said that there was no evidence proving she sent Saxena the press notice. Additionally, the attorney contended that Saxena’s email, via which he claimed to have gotten the press release, was not entered into the record. Additionally, Patkar said that the purported press note was actually an email that was readily composed and sent to Saxena under the accused’s identity. Patkar said in the press note: “VKSaxena, one who is pained by the Hawala transactions himself came to Malegaon, praised NBA and gave a cheque of Rs. 40,000 ($479).”

“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,” she added.

The Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) was asked to receive the fine amount by advocates Gajinder Kumar and Kiran Jai on behalf of Saxena. The court responded by stating that the DLSA might use the money any way they saw fit after getting compensation.

Rejecting Patkar’s prayer to release her on the condition of probation, the judge said, “Considering the facts…damages, age and ailment (of the accused), I am not inclined to give excessive punishment.”

Reacting to the court’s order, Patkar said, “The truth can never be defeated…We have not tried to defame anyone, we only do our work…We will challenge the court’s judgment.” After the sentencing arguments concluded on May 30, the verdict about the sentence’s length was delayed until June 7.

You might also be interested in – India acknowledges extradition of citizen in high-profile assassination plot case to US