Delhi court acquits LG VK Saxena in 25-year-old defamation case filed by Medha Patkar

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.

"This gross inconsistency in the stand of the complainant renders the credibility of her testimony diminished," said the court.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the court highlighted that in loose and voluntary movements like the NBA that tend to be "so indeterminate that its composition cannot be identified", no individual member can claim to be defamed on its behalf.

"The NBA, in its present form, being only a movement without legal or structural identity, cannot attract Explanation (2) to Section 499 IPC. Consequently, even its founders or prominent supporters cannot claim personal defamation on that ground," said the court, adding the complainant cannot be treated as an "aggrieved person" under the offence.

The court also noted discrepancies between a witness's testimony and the complainant's testimony, as she said she was contacted by the witness who had raised questions about the advertisement. However, the witness repeatedly denied contacting Patkar.

"This contradiction shows that the complainant had set up a false case of personal contact and confrontation only to bolster her claim of personal defamation," said the court.

In March 2025, the court had dismissed Patkar's application to examine additional witnesses in the case, terming it a "deliberate attempt to delay the trial, rather than a genuine necessity".

Earlier on January 24, Patkar was acquitted in a two-decade criminal defamation case lodged by Saxena in connection with the derogatory remarks made in a television programme in 2006.

In a separate defamation case filed by Saxena, the Supreme Court in August 2025 upheld Patkar's conviction ordered by a trial court but set aside a fine of Rs 1 lakh imposed on her.