Supreme Court Turns Down Medha Patkar’s Plea in Long-Running Defamation Case Against Delhi Lt Governor VK Saxena
In a recent development in New Delhi, the Supreme Court has refused to step in on a plea by social activist Medha Patkar. She challenged a Delhi High Court decision that blocked her from adding a new witness in a defamation case against VK Saxena, who now serves as the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. This case has dragged on for over two decades, highlighting ongoing legal battles in India’s judicial system.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, made it clear they wouldn’t interfere with the High Court’s ruling. Patkar’s lawyer then asked to withdraw the plea, and the court agreed. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, along with advocates Gajinder Kumar and Kiran Jai, represented Saxena in the matter.
The Roots of the Defamation Case
This defamation case dates back to December 2000. Patkar filed a complaint claiming that a newspaper ad published on November 10, 2000, damaged her reputation. She accused three people: the newspaper’s publisher, editor, and Saxena.
By 2008, the cases against the publisher and editor ended after they reached a compromise and issued an apology. But the trial against Saxena continued. Saxena pleaded not guilty, and Patkar’s team started presenting evidence. From 2018 to 2024, the court examined four prosecution witnesses, including Patkar herself. However, the trial hit multiple roadblocks, like attempts at settlement, the COVID-19 pandemic, and frequent court delays.
Patkar’s Bid for a New Witness and Trial Court Rejection
In February this year, Patkar filed an application under Section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to bring in a new witness not listed in the original complaint. Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma at Saket Courts turned down the request. He pointed out that the case had already lingered for 24 years, and Patkar had examined all witnesses from the initial list.
The magistrate noted that Patkar had earlier sought to add witnesses under Section 254(2) of the CrPC but didn’t mention this new one back then. "If this witness was so important, why wasn’t she included earlier?" the order questioned. It also raised doubts about the timing, suggesting the request came only after other witnesses testified, which looked like a tactic to delay things further.
Delhi High Court’s Detailed Ruling
Patkar then approached the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the trial court mixed up Sections 254(1) and 254(2) of the CrPC. Her lawyers said denying a voluntary witness would cause a miscarriage of justice. They stressed that delays weren’t her fault—external issues like the pandemic played a big role—and that CrPC rules don’t bar adding such a witness later without a court summons.
On the other side, Saxena’s counsel, advocate Gajinder Kumar, fought back hard. He called it a clear case of procedural abuse and delay tactics. The witness wasn’t in the 25-year-old original list or any prior statements, he argued, and bringing her in now would just stretch the already endless trial.
In a 19-page judgment on July 29, Justice Shalinder Kaur’s bench sided with the trial court. While stressing the need for a fair trial, the High Court said cases can’t go on forever, especially with India’s courts overloaded with pending matters. The order criticized Patkar’s application for not explaining why the new witness, Ms. Nandita Narayan, wasn’t brought forward sooner or why she’s relevant now.
Justice Kaur clarified that Section 254(1) allows evidence but doesn’t give unlimited freedom to add witnesses without good reason. Accepting Patkar’s plea would make Section 254(2) pointless and invite more delays. The bench praised the trial court’s analysis of the CrPC sections, the case’s long history, and Patkar’s past actions. It dismissed the petition, calling the lower court’s decision legally sound.
This ruling underscores the challenges in high-profile defamation cases in India, where balancing justice with timely trials remains key. As the case moves forward without the additional witness, it continues to spotlight tensions between activists like Patkar and public figures like Saxena.
