SC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in defamation case, waives penalty of ₹1 lakh

Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing Patkar, argued that statements later withdrawn had been wrongly relied on by the trial court.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of social activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena, but set aside the ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on her, along with conditions requiring supervision and regular court appearances.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. SIngh delivered the order while hearing Patkar’s appeal against a July 29 Delhi High Court ruling that had upheld her conviction.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. SIngh delivered the order while hearing Patkar’s appeal against a July 29 Delhi High Court ruling that had upheld her conviction.

“We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant stands set aside,” the bench said, adding that the supervision order would “not be given effect to.”

The court also extended the time for furnishing a probation bond of ₹25,000 by two weeks.

The defamation case dates back to November 24, 2000, when Patkar, leading the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) against the Sardar Sarovar Dam project in Gujarat, issued a press release titled “True Face of Patriot.”

The statement alleged Saxena had donated a cheque to the NBA, which later bounced — implying covert support for a movement he publicly opposed. At the time, Saxena headed the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), a non-profit supporting the dam project. Based on the release, an online article was published by one Dilip Gohil.

In May last year, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma convicted Patkar, sentencing her to five months in prison and imposing a ₹10 lakh fine. In April this year, the sessions court upheld the conviction but released her on probation, scrapping the jail term and reducing the fine to ₹1 lakh. It also ordered supervision by the district probation officer, with reports to be filed every three months.

The Delhi High Court upheld the sessions court’s ruling, finding that “the essential ingredients” of Section 499 of the IPC were met. The imputations were “specific, published in the public domain, and caused harm to the reputation of the respondent,” the court said. It slightly relaxed the probation condition, allowing Patkar to appear online or through a lawyer instead of in person.

In the Supreme Court, senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing Patkar, argued that statements later withdrawn had been wrongly relied on by the trial court. He also cited a 2007 Supreme Court dismissal, with costs of ₹5,000, of an earlier petition by Saxena seeking an investigation into NBA. Parikh urged modification of the conditions on compensation, supervision, and appearances, noting Patkar’s international recognition and awards.

Parikh [CONFIRM SPL PLEASE] told the bench, “She is a person who has won several awards and international recognition. Some of the directions on compensation, supervision and appearance before the trial court may be modified.”

Patkar denied any connection with Narmada.org, the portal where the press note was published.

Saxena, represented by senior advocate Maninder Singh, argued that even though the penalty had already been reduced from ₹10 lakh to ₹1 lakh, a nominal amount should remain in light of the conviction. He contended that while Patkar was not the portal’s convenor, it listed the NBA’s office address -- the same as Patkar’s.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to interfere with the conviction itself, while removing the penalty and additional conditions.