Delhi Court Grants Relief to L-G Saxena in Medha Patkar Defamation Case

New Delhi, March 18 (NationPress) In a significant development for Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena, a Delhi court on Tuesday rejected an application from social activist Medha Patkar to call an additional witness in her defamation lawsuit against him, labeling her request as “a deliberate attempt to delay the trial”.

This ongoing litigation, spanning 24 years, dates back to when LG Saxena was active in Gujarat, prior to his appointment at Delhi’s Raj Niwas. The case was transferred to Delhi's Saket Court in 2003 under the Supreme Court's directives.

At the time, Saxena was leading an Ahmedabad-based NGO called ‘Council for Civil Liberties’ in 2000 when Patkar initiated a defamation lawsuit against him for disseminating advertisements that criticized her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

Furthermore, Saxena later filed a defamation suit against Patkar for disparaging remarks made in a press release dated November 25, 2000, titled “True face of patriot”. Last year, Patkar was sentenced to five months of simple imprisonment, although her sentence was suspended, and she was granted bail.

On dismissing Patkar’s plea, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma of Saket Court criticized the social worker, noting, “The fact that this witness has emerged only now, after all the complainant’s (Patkar’s) witnesses have been examined raises serious doubt about the genuineness of this request.”

The court remarked, “This case has been pending for 24 years and the complainant (Patkar) has already examined all the witnesses initially listed at the time of filing the complaint. She previously filed an application... yet did not present the new witness in that application.”

Additionally, the court indicated, “The complete absence of any reference to this witness, having not been mentioned even once during the 24 years of trial, further suggests that it is an afterthought, possibly introduced to artificially bolster the complainant’s case.”

“She has not clarified how this recent discovery of the new witness occurred, and this lack of explanation further undermines the credibility of her request,” stated the court.

The court noted that despite the current application being filed under an incorrect legal provision, it decided on the application based entirely on its merits.

Magistrate Sharma emphasized, “Granting such applications without proper justification would establish a dangerous precedent. If parties are allowed to introduce new witnesses arbitrarily at such a late stage, trials could become endless, as litigants could continually present new witnesses at their convenience, thereby indefinitely prolonging proceedings. The judicial process cannot be held captive to such tactics, especially in a case pending for over two decades.”

It is noteworthy that LG Saxena’s counsel has highlighted to the court that from June 20, 2005, to February 1, 2023, the trial has been delayed over 94 times due to the complainant Patkar’s absence or her requests for adjournments.

The counsel pointed out that after the summons were issued in 2005, Patkar did not appear and requested over 46 adjournments to record her evidence, showing a disregard for legal processes. She first appeared before the trial court in 2012, seven years after the summons were issued.

The petition further noted that after 20 adjournments, Patkar concluded her examination in chief but remained absent for her cross-examination, requesting 24 additional adjournments.