The Saket District Court in Delhi on Friday convicted activist Medha Patkar in a 2001 defamation case filed by VK Saxena, who is now Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG).
The Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma convicted Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC).
The court in its judgment stated that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused published the imputations with the intent and knowledge that they would harm the reputation of the complainant and, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. She is hereby convicted of the same.
The court stated: “It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused (Medha Patkar) published the imputations with the intent and knowledge that they would harm the reputation of the complainant and, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. She is hereby convicted of the same.”
The metropolitan magistrate while passing the judgment said that reputation is one of the most valuable assets a person can possess as it affects both personal and professional relationships and can significantly impact an individual’s standing in society.
The accused’s statements, calling the complainant a coward, not a patriot, and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions, were not only defamatory per-se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions. Furthermore, 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 added.
The judgment further stated that the accused failed to provide any evidence to counter these claims or to show that she did not intend or foresee the harm these imputations would cause. The resulting inquiries and doubts raised among the complainant’s acquaintances, as well as the shift in perception highlighted by the witnesses, underscore the significant damage to his reputation. Therefore, it is clear that the accused’s actions were deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing the complainant’s good name, and have indeed caused substantial harm to his standing and credit in the eyes of the public. The accused’s statements, calling the complainant a coward, not a patriot, and alleging his involvement in hawansactions, were not only defamatory per-se but also crafted to incite negative perception, it added
Patkar and Saxena have been embroiled in a legal battle since 2000 after she filed a suit against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
