Defamation case: Delhi court issues non-bailable warrant against social activist Medha Patkar
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court had refused Patkar's plea to stay for two weeks the proceedings for execution of a probation bond linked to the case and had asked her to approach the trial court.
On April 8, the court of Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Singh had granted the activist a one-year probation in the case, noting that the leader of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) had received multiple awards for her work and that the offence committed by her was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment.
Also read | The defamation case stems from a press release issued by Patkar on November 25, 2000, titled 'True Face of Patriot'.
Earlier, the court had dismissed Patkar's appeal against her conviction in the defamation case filed in 2000, where she had allegedly called Saxena, who headed an NGO in Gujarat at the time, a 'coward' and alleged his involvement in hawala transactions.
On May 24, 2024, a magistrate court had held Patkar's statements defamatory and sentenced her to a five-month jail term on July 1. However, additional sessions judge Singh had suspended Patkar's sentence and granted her bail on July 29 last year.
The defamation case stems from a press release issued by Patkar on November 25, 2000, titled 'True Face of Patriot'. While Saxena's organisation had actively supported the Sardar Sarovar Project of the Gujarat government, the NBA, headed by Patkar, was leading a mass movement in opposition to the project.
In the press release, Patkar had alleged that Saxena, who was then the president of the non-profit National Council of Civil Liberties, was supporting the NBA in secrecy. She alleged that he had given a cheque to the NBA and it had subsequently bounced.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
DU issues fresh anti-defacement rules ahead of polls
Delhi University on Friday issued a fresh set of guidelines based on a Delhi High Court order stating that candidates are now required to submit a ₹1 lakh bond to cover any damage caused by their supporters during the campaign for the upcoming Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections. Any student caught impersonating candidates or deliberately misspelling names on posters could face a fine of up to ₹ 25,000, suspension, or even expulsion. (Sanchit Khanna/HT PHOTO) The move, an apparent attempt to curb vandalism and extravagant campaigning, include mandatory affidavits, biometric checks, and steep penalties for violations. Students must also sign an anti-defacement pledge at the time of admission, similar to the existing anti-ragging declaration. Any student caught impersonating candidates or deliberately misspelling names on posters could face a fine of up to ₹25,000, suspension, or even expulsion. As per the Delhi Hight Court's directions issued in a related matter on November 11, 2024, traditional campaigning methods like rallies, roadshows, and the use of loudspeakers are banned. Colleges have been asked to expand designated 'walls of democracy' for poster display. Campaigning is to be conducted mainly through digital platforms and structured debates, which will be uploaded to the university website. The university will also set up 'Committees for the Prevention of Defacement of Property' at both the college and university levels, with member details published on notice boards and official websites. The notification further states that DUSU office bearers may book only three approved locations for official events and are barred from reserving university guest houses or hostels. Entry of outsiders will be restricted, and biometric or facial recognition systems may be used to monitor access. The guidelines are framed in reference to the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act (2007) and relevant court rulings.
Indian Express
40 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC pulls up police for separating interfaith couple: ‘If couple wants marriage, will protect them' rules judge
The Delhi High Court on Friday came to the rescue of an interfaith couple, ordering for their continued protection and stay at a government safe house, while pulling up the police for allegedly separating the couple instead of providing them protection. The court also sought that the police identify the personnel responsible for the same. A 26-year old Muslim man, in a relationship with a 25-year old Hindu woman since 2018, had moved HC last month seeking its urgent directions to the Delhi Police to provide the couple necessary protection and a safe house. The request was made after the couple expressed their intent to marry, which was met with familial opposition and threats. According to advocate Utkarsh Singh, representing the man, instead of being provided with the safety, the couple was 'forcibly separated', with the woman 'medically examined, and later detained at a woman's shelter July 24, despite her repeated pleas to be with her partner. The police, in a status report filed before HC on August 6, asserted 'there was no element of coercion, unlawful separation, or procedural irregularity at any stage', with all actions 'taken purely from a welfare and constitutional standpoint,' with due regard to the woman's 'safety and autonomy'. The police's submission, however, did not convince the court. The woman, who virtually interacted with Justice Sanjeev Narula on Friday, said that she was taken away forcibly by the police and separated from her partner. She asserted that when the couple had initially sought protection, the police had said 'there is no such thing as a safe cell', and coerced her into undergoing a medical examination. 'I went for a medical examination and without telling me or without my consent, I was taken to a shelter home,' she told Justice Narula, adding that all her personal belongings were taken away, including her phone. Orally remarking that 'police has to sensitise its officers' and that they are 'forcibly separating' consenting adult partners, Justice Narula expressed disapproval with the police's status report. 'Has he (the police personnel who filed the status report) even interacted with the (woman) to understand what has happened? I'm not going to allow this at all.' The HC also refused to allow the woman's father – who is opposed to the relationship – to interfere, noting that he has 'no role' given that his daughter is an adult and has consented to the relationship. The father's counsel impressed before the court that 'social reality has to be taken into consideration', with 'in Indian society, parents have to be consulted' for marriage. To this, the court orally responded, 'What law requires an adult to ask father for marrying someone of different faith?… You are insisting on something that I cannot appreciate… Constitutional right guarantees she can marry of her choice and I am going to honour that… If the couple wants to get married, I am going to protect them.' After sustained interaction with the woman, Justice Narula went on to assure her orally, 'If you are firm about your decision, we will support you. I am supporting your choice, I will support your decision.' 'As far as the police are concerned, they will support you,' the HC said, while recording in its order that the woman's 'intention to marry is informed and consistent based on her relationship with him (her partner) over the past seven years'.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC upholds quashing of 'wilful defaulter' tag on Ratul Puri
New Delhi: A division bench of Delhi High Court on Friday upheld a 2023 single judge ruling that set aside Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank 's decision to declare businessman Ratul Puri as a wilful defaulter under the 2015 Reserve Bank of India 's Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters. "We are in entire agreement with the single judge that the Master Circular does not envisage categorisation of a borrower as wilful defaulter without the requisite degree of circumspection and examination," the bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul said in its order. The bench said the forensic audit report (FAR) did not verify the source of funds invested in the subsidiaries of Moser Baer India (MBIL), with which Puri was earlier associated. The bank could not have issued show-cause notice to him for wilful default without verifying the source of funds, it observed. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program
