Delhi HC Issues Notice On Medha Patkar's Plea Against Trial Court's Refusal To Introduce New Witness In Defamation Case Against LG VK Saxena

Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar on Thursday moved the Delhi High Court against dismissal of her application to introduce and examine an additional witness to prove her defamation case lodged against Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.

Justice Shalinder Kaur issued notice on the plea and sought response of Saxena in the matter.

During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that it is one of the oldest matters pending since last 24 years. To this, Patkar's counsel said that there was no delay on their part.

The counsel prayed for stay on recording of Saxena's statement under Section 313 of CrPC which is tomorrow. However, the Court did not pass any stay order as of today.

Section 313 of CrPC allows the court to examine the accused to enable them to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against them, ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard and justify their case.

The matter will be heard in May.

Patkar has challenged the trial court order passed on March 18 dismissing her application observing that it was a deliberate attempt to delay the trial rather than a genuine necessity.

Saxena, who is presently Delhi LG, was the head of an Ahmedabad based NGO namely “Council for Civil Liberties” in 2000 when Patkar filed the defamation case against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

On the other hand, Saxena also filed a defamation case against Patkar for defaming him in a press note dated November 25, 2000, titled "true face of patriot.” Patkar allegedly said that Saxena was a coward and not a patriot. In that case, Patkar was sentenced to 5 months simple imprisonment last year. The sentence was later suspended and she was granted bail.

In relation to her defamation case against Saxena, Patkar had moved the application to introduce a new witness arguing that she was well within her rights to examine any witness to prove her case under section 254(1) of CrPC and that there was no embargo on such right.

Dismissing her application, the Trial Court had said that the case has been pending for 24 years and Patkar has already examined all the witnesses initially listed at the time of filing the complaint.

“The complainant has not provided any explanation as to when, how, or under what circumstances she became aware of this witness. If she was aware of the witness from the outset, she has offered no justification for the prolonged delay in summoning them. Conversely, if she claims to have only recently discovered the witness, she has not explained how such discovery occurred. This lack of explanation further weakens the credibility of her request,” the Court had said.