A Delhi court on Tuesday rejected activist Medha Patkar’s plea to introduce a new witness in her defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena, stating that the move appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay the trial rather than a genuine requirement.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma of the Saket Courts observed that the case had been pending for 24 years and that Patkar had already examined all the witnesses she had originally listed in her complaint.
The court further noted that she had previously sought to summon additional witnesses under Section 254(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) but had not mentioned the current witness in that application.
“The complainant (Medha Patkar) has had ample opportunity to present all relevant witnesses. If this particular witness were truly material to the case, they would have been included in the original list or at the very least mentioned in the earlier application for additional witnesses. The fact that this witness has emerged only now, after the completion of the complainant’s witness examination, raises serious doubts about the credibility of this request,” the court remarked.
The court further stated that neither Patkar nor any of her witnesses had referenced this new witness at any stage of the proceedings. “If this witness were genuinely relevant, their name or role in the case would have been mentioned at some point during the last 24 years. The complete absence of any reference suggests that this request is an afterthought, possibly intended to artificially strengthen the complainant’s case,” it added.
Patkar, who leads the Narmada Bachao Andolan, argued that under Section 254(1) Cr.PC, she had the right to examine any witness to substantiate her claims and that there was no restriction on her exercising this right.
Her counsel contended that the provision was mandatory in nature, as indicated by the use of the word "shall" in the statute, leaving no discretion to the court.
However, the counsel representing LG Saxena countered that the complainant had filed the application with the sole intention of delaying the trial.
It was argued that since all the witnesses cited by Patkar had already been examined, there was no justifiable reason for the omission of the present witness from the initial list.
The defence further claimed that the new witness was being introduced at this late stage to manipulate the proceedings and prolong the trial.
Dismissing the plea, the court ruled that if Patkar’s interpretation of Section 254(1) Cr.PC were to be accepted, it would result in an unending trial, as both complainants and accused persons could continually summon new witnesses.
“What would prevent a complainant or an accused from indefinitely prolonging the trial by repeatedly requesting the examination of additional witnesses? If the court were to have no discretion in such matters, each time a final witness was examined, a party could simply request another under this provision, leading to a perpetual trial. This interpretation would be absurd and cannot be the intended purpose of this provision,” the ruling stated.
The case, which dates back to the year 2000, involves allegations of defamation against LG Saxena. Advocates Gajinder Kumar, Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar, Drishti, and Somya Arya appeared for Saxena before the Saket courts.
Follow us
