Supreme Court Asks Medha Patkar Why Drag Her 25 Yr Old Defamation Case Against VK Saxena; Refuses To Entertain Plea To Examine Addl Witness

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain Medha Patkar's plea challenging a Delhi High Court judgment refusing to allow her to examine an additional witness in her 2000 criminal defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, who was then the chief of the NGO National Council for Civil Liberties.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma permitted Patkar to withdraw the petition after expressing disinclination to interfere with the High Court's judgment.

During the hearing, Justice Sundresh asked Patkar's counsel, “Why do you want to drag this?”

Patkar's counsel submitted that if the case ended in acquittal, there remained a risk of further action against her. “If this case results in acquittal will he leave me after that? No, they will take action against me for this case. That danger is there.”

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Saxena, opposed this apprehension and pointed out that in the present matter, Patkar is the one who has filed the present complaint against Saxena. “What action…it is their complaint my lord”, he said.

However, Singh opposed Justice Sundresh's proposal that the Court dismiss Patkar's petition but record that there is no action proposed to be initiated by the respondent against the petitioner.

Justice Sundresh clarified, “We are only saying that both parties will not proceed on this issue that's all.” Singh added, “All my legal remedies be open, that's all.”

When Patkar's counsel sought an adjournment to argue, Justice Sundresh refused, saying, “No, on merits we have rejected it already. We are not entertaining on merits. If you don't want the observation, we will not give. Since you expressed it, we thought of facilitating you, that's it.”

Singh pointed out that costs had been imposed on Patkar multiple times for failure to examine witnesses.

The bench observed that the matter was not worth continuing further. Justice Sundresh remarked, “See, with due respect to both of you, I think this is not worth... let's just put an end to this.” Patkar's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the bench allowed.

Patkar had filed the present criminal defamation complaint against Saxena in December 2000 over an alleged defamatory advertisement titled “True face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan” published in the Indian Express on November 10, 2000. During the trial, Patkar examined four witnesses between 2018 and 2024.

In February 2025, she moved an application under Section 254(1) of the CrPC to examine an additional witness, Nandita Narayan, but the Judicial Magistrate dismissed it on March 18, 2025. The Delhi High Court, on July 29, 2025, upheld the dismissal.

The High Court held that there was no sufficient cause for the failure to produce the proposed witness during the long pendency of the proceedings and found no illegality in the trial court's decision.

The Supreme Court on August 11 upheld Patkar's conviction in the defamation case  filed by Saxena over a press note issued by her in response to the aforementioned advertisement, but set aside the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed on her.

In the press note issued in November 2000 titled “True Face of A Patriot,” she levelled allegations against Saxena. In April 2025, the trial court convicted her under Section 500 of the IPC but exempted her from jail by applying probation.

The Delhi High Court upheld her conviction and sentence while slightly modifying the probation requirements. The Supreme Court modified the probation conditions, allowing her to furnish bonds instead of making periodic appearances.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 13732/2025 Diary No. 45990 / 2025

Case Title – Medha Patkar v. VK Saxena 

Click Here To Read/Download Order