SC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in defamation case, waives penalty of ₹1 lakh
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh passed the order in relation to an appeal filed by Patkar challenging the July 29 order of the Delhi high court upholding her conviction.
'We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant stands set aside,' the bench said.
The Delhi high court upheld the trial court's order convicting and sentencing Patkar in a 2001 criminal defamation case filed by L-G Saxena, concluding that her statements were defamatory and tarnished Saxena's image.
The defamation case was filed by Saxena at the time when he was heading the non profit National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL)-- which actively supported the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project in Gujarat.
Also Read: Delhi HC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in criminal defamation case
It stemmed from the press release issued by Patkar, who led the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) that mobilised protests against the construction of the dam. The release titled 'True Face of Patriot', alleged that Saxena had donated a cheque to NBA, which later bounced and implied that he covertly aided the movement, which he publicly opposed.
In May last year, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma found Patkar guilty, sentenced her to five months imprisonment and imposed ₹10 lakh fine. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation.
The HC upheld the sessions court order, observing that the same was passed after due consideration of evidence and law.
The order of July 29 said, 'The record suggests that the essential ingredients of Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the IPC are clearly made out. The imputations made were specific, published in the public domain and caused harm to the reputation of the respondent. The order under challenge appears to have been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record and the applicable law.'
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for Patkar said that the HC disbelieved the statement of witnesses produced in favour of Patkar's defence.
Patkar asserted she had no connection either with Narmada.org and did not have knowledge about the press note. Parikh further submitted that the release could have been typed by anyone and mere addition of the name at the end of the note, could not be considered as a proof that the release was issued or caused to be published by her.
Saxena was represented in the top court by senior advocate Maninder Singh.
The L-G maintained that Patkar was actively involved in the issuance of the press release. He further submitted that even though the 70-year old activist was not a convenor of the web portal Narmada.org, on which the press release was uploaded, she was directly correlated to it since the portal contained NBA's office address, which is same as Patkar's address.
The high court had modified the condition of probation requiring her to physically appear before the trial court every three months. The high court said that she could either appear online or through her lawyer. The top court held that the supervision order in this regard will not be given effect to.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC reserves verdict on criminal appeal of Azam Khan in Dungarpur case
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on a criminal appeal filed by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan challenging his conviction and sentence of 10 years by a special court in a case related to forced eviction of Rampur's Dungarpur colony. Allahabad HC reserves verdict on criminal appeal of Azam Khan in Dungarpur case Contractor Barkat Ali, another convict in the case, has also filed a criminal appeal in the high court. Justice Sameer Jain reserved the verdict on petitions of both Khan and Ali. On May 30 last year, Rampur MP-MLA court had sentenced Khan to 10 years of imprisonment and Ali to seven-year imprisonment. In August 2019, Abrar, a resident of Dungarpur colony, had filed a case against three people including Azam Khan, retired circle officer Ale Hasan Khan and contractor Barkat Ali at Ganj police station in Rampur. According to the complainant, Azam Khan, Ale Hasan Khan and Barkat Ali had beaten him up in December, 2016. They also demolished his house and threatened to kill him, Abrar alleged. Residents of Dungarpur colony had filed 12 cases in connection with the forced eviction. The criminal cases were registered at Ganj police station under various IPC sections including robbery, theft and assault. On Tuesday, appearing for Azam Khan, his counsel Imran Ullah contended that Abrar lodged the FIR after three years and for which he has given explanation that since Azam Khan was a cabinet minister, he failed to lodge a case against him due to his clout. However, Azam Khan remained minister only till 2017 and the FIR was lodged in 2019, the counsel said, adding that the trial court proceeded in an "illegal" manner against the appellant. Opposing the appeal, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel contended that the trial court has passed reasoned and legal order. The appellant has a long criminal history and prosecution has successfully proved his case, goel said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India.com
2 minutes ago
- India.com
John Abraham Urges CJI To Review SC's Order, Says They're Not Strays, They're Community Dogs
New Delhi : Actor John Abraham has written to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, urging him to review the recent stray dog order passed by the Supreme Court. In his letter, John wrote, "I hope you will agree that these are not 'strays' but community dogs--respected and loved by many, and very much Delhiites in their own right, having lived in the region as neighbours to humans for generations." He pointed out that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Dog Rules 2023 require the sterilisation, vaccination, and return of community dogs to their home areas--an approach endorsed by the World Health Organisation and proven effective in cities like Jaipur (70 per cent of dogs sterilised) and Lucknow (84 per cent). "With an estimated 10 lakh community dogs, Delhi's canine population are its true residents. It is neither practical nor humane to shelter or relocate them all," John added. John, who earlier this year became the first honorary director of PETA India, requested the CJI to look at the case through "compassion, science-based solutions and compliance with Indian law" to safeguard animals. "By contrast, displacement simply fails. Delhi has an estimated 10 lakh dogs. It is neither practical nor humane to shelter or relocate them all, and removal only opens the door for unfamiliar, unsterilised, and unvaccinated dogs to move in, leading to greater competition, territorial disputes, and public health risks. I respectfully request a review and modification of this judgment in favour of the lawful, humane, and effective ABC approach, which safeguards public health while honouring the constitutional values of compassion and coexistence, a stand the Supreme Court has consistently upheld since 2015," he appealed. On Monday, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that all localities should be made free of stray dogs and there should not be any compromise. It also made it clear that no captured animal will be released back on the also ordered contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that attempts to obstruct the authorities from carrying out the capture drive. "If any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance," said Justice Pardiwala. The apex court also directed the states and municipal authorities to create dog shelters with sufficient staff to sterilise and immunise them. "NCT Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, Ghaziabad, MCD, and NMDC shall start picking up stray dogs from all localities, particularly from more vulnerable localities. It is for the authorities to look into, and if they have to create a force, do it at the earliest. However, this should be the first and foremost exercise to make all localities free of stray dogs. There should not be any compromise in undertaking the exercise," said the bench. It further directed that authorities in Delhi-NCR must set up a helpline so all dog bite complaints can be registered, with the offending animal picked up within four hours of a complaint. It also ordered all authorities to maintain a record of daily stray dogs captured and detained. The bench stated that CCTV monitoring will ensure compliance, and no dog should be released back into the street or public spaces.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court reserves verdict for suo motu case on Enforcement Directorate summons to lawyers who gave legal advice to clients
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) reserved for judgment a suo motu case concerning the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to two senior advocates merely for giving professional advice to their client. Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed that no lawyer could be summoned for giving an opinion on a legal issue. However, Mr. Mehta said if a lawyer had participated in any act beyond his professional duty, amounting to an offence, the 'same law which applies to others would apply to lawyers also'. Mr. Mehta noted that the lawyer's privilege of not disclosing his communication with his client was a recognised statutory right under Sections 126 - 129 of the repealed Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and continues to be so under Sections 132 - 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. 'The scope and ambit of Section 132, 133 and 134 of BSA will have to be decided on a case-to-case basis and it would be hazardous to lay down any broad overarching guidelines, merely because of one stray incident,' Mr. Mehta argued. The suo motu case was registered by the apex court after Bar bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAoRA), represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh and advocate Vipin Nair, objected to senior advocates being summoned by investigating agencies, including the ED, for offering legal advice to clients. Mr. Singh had voiced concern about the 'chilling effect' that 'arbitrary summoning' could have on the legal profession. Chief Justice Gavai, earlier in July, had observed the ED was 'crossing all limits' even as Mr. Mehta urged the court not to make any 'generalised' observations that may fuel a concerted effort to build a narrative against the Central agency.
