delhi-lg-urges-court-strict-punishment-for-patkar

Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena has requested the court to impose the maximum punishment on Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case.

 

This case dates back to 2001, when Saxena, then president of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an NGO, accused Patkar of defaming him through a press release.

 

The Saket District Court recently convicted Medha Patkar in this defamation case. On Thursday, Saxena's lawyer argued that Patkar's persistent defiance of the law warrants stringent punishment.

 

The lawyer labeled Patkar as a habitual offender, citing another defamation case from 2006 involving the same parties, which is still pending.

 

Patkar's lawyer, Advocate Abhimanyu Shreshth, sought leniency, noting Patkar’s age (she was born in 1954) and her health issues. He also highlighted her record of winning national and international awards. He requested that the court consider releasing her on probation for good conduct.

 

The court, presided over by Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma, has scheduled the next hearing for June 7. The court has also requested a Victim Assessment Report from the District Legal Service Authority and an affidavit from Patkar disclosing her income and assets.

 

Last week, while convicting Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the judge stated that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Patkar's statements were intended to harm Saxena's reputation.

 

The court emphasized that Patkar's actions were deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing Saxena's reputation, and had indeed caused substantial harm.

 

The court noted that Patkar’s statements, which called Saxena a coward and not a patriot, and accused him of involvement in hawala transactions, were defamatory. These statements were crafted to incite negative perceptions of Saxena.

 

The accusation that Saxena was mortgaging the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service.

 

Patkar and Saxena have been engaged in legal battles since 2000. Patkar filed a suit against Saxena for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. At that time, Saxena was the chief of the National Council for Civil Liberties, an Ahmedabad-based NGO.

 

In this defamation case, Saxena's complaint stemmed from a press note issued by Patkar on November 25, 2000. The press note accused Saxena of being involved in hawala transactions and alleged that a cheque he issued had bounced. Saxena claimed that these statements were false and intended to harm his reputation.

 

Saxena alleged that Patkar's accusations lowered his moral and intellectual standing in the public’s estimation and injured his character. He emphasized that the defamatory statements were intended to damage his reputation and were based on false and non-existent claims.

 

As the court considers the appropriate punishment for Patkar, it will also examine the broader implications of defamation and the responsibilities of public figures in maintaining the integrity of their statements and actions.