A Delhi court on Saturday acquitted activist Medha Patkar in a 20-year-old defamation case filed against her by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, reported Bar and Bench.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma of the Saket Courts stated that Saxena had failed to prove that Patkar made defamatory statements about him during a television program in April 2006.
The case was filed when Saxena was heading the Ahmedabad-based non-governmental organisation National Council for Civil Liberties. Saxena alleged that Patkar had made defamatory allegations about the NGO receiving civil contracts, which he had denied.
The court held that Patkar was not a panellist on the program in question and only a pre-recorded video clip of hers was played during the telecast, reported PTI.
“It is important to note that neither the reporter who actually recorded the audio-video nor any person who had seen the accused making the impugned statements has been examined as a witness,” the judge was quoted as saying by the news agency.
He added that the video played during the telecast appeared to be a part of an interview or a press conference held by Patkar.
It is essential to submit the entire video and audio of the press conference for the court to establish anything, the judge held.
He said that Saxena had failed to produce the original video footage or the recording device that recorded the allegedly defamatory statements. As a result, the allegations cannot be established, the judge added.
In August, the Supreme Court had upheld Patkar’s conviction in a separate defamation case filed in 2001 by Saxena.
Saxena had alleged that Patkar had defamed him in a press note titled “True face of patriot”, which the activist had issued in November 2000.
In May 2024, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma convicted Patkar in the case. She was found guilty of criminal defamation and held liable to serve two years in jail, pay a fine, or both.
The court also observed that Patkar had accused Saxena of “mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests” and held the allegation to be a “direct attack” on his integrity and public service.
While upholding the decision, the Supreme Court had modified the probation condition requiring her to appear before the trial court periodically, instead allowing her to furnish bonds.
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!