SC confirms activist Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case by Delhi LG VK Sexena
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi high court order on the matter that released Medha Patkar on "probation of good conduct" but required her to appear before the trial court once every three years.
It added, "However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the penalty imposed stands set aside and we further clarify that the supervision order will not be given effect."
The high court on July 29 upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to 70-year-old Patkar. Saxena filed the case 25 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat.
The high court had said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law.
It had said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
The high court also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on "probation of good conduct", and said it did not require any interference.
Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison.
The high court, however, had modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through videoconferencing or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances.
The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case.
The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on "probation of good conduct" on furnishing a probation bond of ₹25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing ₹1 lakh as fine.
The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a ₹10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC.
Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000.
On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also "crafted to incite negative perceptions" about him.
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 had said.
On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was "rightly convicted" and there was "no substance" in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
Brazil Finance Minister Fernando Haddad Says Meeting With Scott Bessent Was Canceled
(Bloomberg) -- Brazil Finance Minister Fernando Haddad said in a local television interview on Monday that a long-sought meeting with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was canceled and hasn't been rescheduled. Haddad said he tried to set another time for the virtual gathering with Bessent, which had been set to take place this week, but has not been successful. He added that Brazil trade isn't a focal point for the US government. The cancellation marks the latest setback in a relationship that has soured quickly since the US government levied 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods earlier this month. Those trade barriers are part of a pressure campaign to get the country's Supreme Court to drop coup attempt charges against former head of state Jair Bolsonaro, who is an ally of Donald Trump. Haddad has spearheaded efforts to negotiate with the US, and had expressed hope that talks with Bessent would lead to additional breakthroughs after the Trump administration exempted nearly 700 products from the higher levies that went into effect last week. The Brazilian finance minister suggested during the interview, however, that Bolsonaro supporters in the US had played a role in scuttling the meeting with Bessent. 'The official reason given was a 'lack of availability,'' Haddad said, describing the explanation as 'unusual.' He noted that the issue extends beyond the Finance Ministry. Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said last week that he wants to see signs that the US is willing to negotiate in a way that treats his nation as an equal partner before he calls Trump to discuss the tariffs. Haddad reiterated that point during the interview, while saying that Lula has not closed the door on a phone call with Trump. Finance ministry officials with meet with both Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin later on Monday to finalize a plan to soften the economic blow from the US tariffs, Haddad said. The measures, which focus on taxes, financing lines and government purchases, have to be flexible, he said. Haddad's main worry is protecting the Brazilian economy, and he added that exports intended for the US will require new destinations. --With assistance from Andre Loureiro Dias. (Adds additional context) More stories like this are available on
India Today
28 minutes ago
- India Today
Saved you once: Chief Justice recalls contempt warning while junking lawyer's plea
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition by Mumbai-based advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay seeking action against alleged illegal activities of political parties, calling it non-maintainable. The bench also rebuked Upadhyay for his courtroom conduct, with Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recalling a prior contempt warning from his Bombay High Court petition sought directions to State Election Commissions (SECs) to curb alleged illegal activities by political parties that, he claimed, could endanger the "sovereignty, integrity, and unity of the country." The petition also sought directions for the registration of an FIR against MNS leader Raj Thackeray and his workers for allegedly assaulting citizens over the use of the Hindi bench in its order said, "The public interest litigations are necessary but in the name of PILs, we cannot allow publicity interest litigations," while dismissing the plea. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar took strong exception to the petitioner approaching the top court directly, bypassing the High Upadhyay insisted on the maintainability of his petition, the Chief Justice questioned why he had not first approached the Bombay High Court.'Can't this be raised before the Bombay High Court? This is nothing but a publicity interest litigation. Though PILs are necessary to protect citizens' rights, this petition concerns policy matters of the Union or ECI and does not justify a direct approach to the Supreme Court under Article 32,' the bench court permitted Upadhyay to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court instead. 'Take a flight and go and file there tomorrow,' the Chief Justice briefly rose during the hearing when the Chief Justice addressed Upadhyay's courtroom conduct. Reminding him of a prior contempt episode during his tenure as a judge of the Bombay High Court, Chief Justice Gavai warned, 'I have saved you once after finding you guilty. I don't want to issue contempt. Don't make these gestures. Don't remind me of Bombay days. Recollect what saved you that time. Don't make me remind you of what happened there.'Sources familiar with the earlier incident said that Upadhyay had been cautioned by a Bombay High Court bench led by Justice Gavai after he insisted on being heard against the court's advice. A show cause notice for contempt was reportedly considered but later dropped following intervention by another the Monday hearing, Upadhyay, maintaining that the relief sought in his plea could not be granted by the High Court, eventually agreed to withdraw the is not the first time the bench has issued such guidance. Just days earlier, it directed Sunil Shukla, President of the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, to approach the High Court first for similar petition had urged the Supreme Court to instruct all SECs to adopt a coordinated framework to monitor and prevent unlawful conduct by political parties. However, the top court reiterated its position that such matters must first be addressed before appropriate High Courts.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
New Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
28 UPSC aspirants move SC against ‘opaque' answer-key policy; seek fair chance in Civil Services Exams
NEW DELHI: Twenty-eight aspirants of the prestigious Civil Services Examination have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Union Public Service Commission's (UPSC) 'arbitrary, exclusionary and non-transparent' practice of publishing the preliminary examination answer keys only after the completion of the year-long recruitment cycle. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar on August 12, Tuesday. The petition contended before the apex court that such delayed disclosure denies candidates any meaningful opportunity to challenge demonstrable errors in the answer key, resulting in wrongful exclusion from the Mains stage. The plea, filed through advocates Rajesh G Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, in the top court sought immediate judicial intervention to direct the UPSC to release a provisional answer key for the 2025 Prelims held on May 25, invite objections, and publish a final key before results are declared. As an interim relief, the petitioners have also prayed to be provisionally allowed to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2025, commencing on August 22, so that the adjudication of their grievance is not rendered infructuous.
