NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order confirming the trial court's order holding activist and Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar guilty in a defamation case filed by Delhi's Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena in 2001.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, set aside the penalty of Rs one lakh imposed upon her.
Taking up her appeal, the bench said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction."
The court, however, allowed her to furnish bonds by modifying the order on her release on probation of good conduct.
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Patkar, contended there was no direct evidence linking the alleged press note with her. The note was not proved.
The court, however, rejected his submission and modified the order on penalty only as well as the supervision order which required her periodic appearance.
On July 29, 2025, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding no illegality or material irregularity in the trial court's judgment.
The High Court had said that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law.
The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction by a magisterial court in the case.
The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on "probation of good conduct" on furnishing a probation bond of Rs 25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing Rs 1 lakh as fine.
The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC.
Saxena had filed the defamation case against Patkar in 2001, when he was the former President of an Ahmedabad-based, NGO, National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).
Saxena had in 2000 published an advertisement against Patkar's NBA, the movement that opposed the construction of dams over the Narmada river.
After getting to see the publication of the advertisement, Patkar had issued an alleged defamatory press note against Saxena.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
