Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A Delhi court on Monday suspended the five-month sentence awarded to social activist Medha Patkar and ordered her release on bail in a criminal defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) VK Saxena.
The order was passed on an appeal filed by Patkar against the July 1 verdict by the trial court holding her guilty of defamation and slapping a cost of ₹10 lakh as compensation besides the five-month sentence.
Additional sessions judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh, while suspending the sentence, granted bail to Patkar on a bond of ₹25,000 and a surety of like amount. The court sought a response from the LG before the next date of hearing on September 4.
The case stems from a press release issued by Patkar on November 25, 2000, alleging that Saxena, the then president of not-for-profit National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), gave a cheque to Patkar’s Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) that later bounced.
At that time, NCCL was actively involved in ensuring the completion of the Sardar Sarovar — a project that NBA was opposed to — and on January 18, 2001, Saxena filed a defamation case against Patkar, alleging that the press release contained false accusations intended to harm his reputation.
During the hearings, Saxena testified that the press release was issued with an ulterior motive to defame him. His claims were supported by two witnesses who testified that their high regard for Saxena was diminished after reading the press release.
In its order convicting Patkar, the trial court on May 24 found that Patkar had issued the press note and that her actions were deliberate, malicious, and aimed at tarnishing Saxena’s name and caused substantial harm to his standing and credit in the eyes of the public. It added that she failed to provide evidence to oppose Saxena’s claim.
Deciding the quantum of punishment, judicial magistrate first class Raghav Sharma on July 1 noted Patkar’s advanced age and medical ailments and said that an imprisonment of one or two years would be “disproportionately harsh”, while a term of one or two months would leave the complainant without justice.
“Therefore, a sentence of five months simple imprisonment is appropriate, ensuring that the punishment is significant yet not excessively severe given her circumstances”, the sentencing order said.
The court, on that date, turned down Patkar’s plea to release her on probation. “Releasing the convict on probation in this case, where the complainant had to fight a legal battle for 25 years, would make his efforts futile as he would be denied of his right to be repatriated for his harassment. Allowing probation in this case would be contrary to the principles of justice,” the court said.
Slapping her with a fine of ₹10 lakh, the court said the amount will “serve as a compensatory measure for the complainant”.