NEW DELHI: In a relief to Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, a court here on Thursday acquitted him in a 25-year-old defamation case filed by activist Medha Patkar, stating that the complainant failed to prove her charges against him.
Patkar and Saxena had been locked in a legal tussle since 2000 after she filed a suit against him for publishing an advertisement against her under the headline ‘The True Face of Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan’ in The Indian Express. The complaint was originally filed in Ahmedabad and was transferred to Delhi in 2010 on the directions of the
Supreme Court.
Saxena, who then headed an Ahmedabad-based NGO named ‘Council for Civil Liberties’, had also filed two cases against Patkar for making derogatory remarks against him on a TV channel and issuing a defamatory
press statement.
Observing that Patkar’s case suffered from “irreconcilable contradictions”, Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma said the remarks in the publication largely pertains to Narmada Bachao Andolan’s (NBA) activities and the collective criticism of the organisation does not transform into Patkar’s personal defamation.
The advertisement also addresses the conduct of certain individuals such as Chitaroopa Patil and
Arundhati Roy, it said.
“It is hereby held that complainant (Patkar) has failed to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused. Accused VK Saxena is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 500 (defamation)of the Indian Penal Code,” the judge said.
“The complainant, by seeking to read herself into statements directed against the NBA, is effectively substituting herself for the organisation, which she cannot do,”
said the court.
When the advertisement is read in its entirety and in proper context, it cannot be said that any defamatory imputation was made against the complainant personally,
it added.
The court noted that unlike Patil and Roy, Patkar’s name only appears in the heading and finds no mention in the body of the advertisement where any imputation
may be articulated.
“The allegations that confidential documents were shared abroad, that the body operated through hawala transactions or that it deliberately avoided registration are all framed at the organisational
level,” said the court.
The court highlighted that the complainant’s case suffered from “irreconcilable contradictions”.
The advertisement mentioned the NBA sharing confidential documents with foreign persons. Patkar admitted to the existence and knowledge of such a letter authored by Patil and sent to foreign nationals, but justified it by saying it was only a “risk analysis” disclosure which did not harm national interest. However, during cross-examination, she pleaded complete ignorance about the letter.
The court acquitted Patkar in a long-standing defamation case, citing inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and noting the NBA lacks legal identity, so no member can claim personal
defamation.
Earlier convictions and fines were overturned, and attempts to delay the trial were dismissed as deliberate.