Relief for Delhi L-G V.K. Saxena as Court Denies Patkar’s Witness Request in 24-Year-Old Defamation Case
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant victory for V.K. Saxena, a Delhi court dismissed Medha Patkar's request to examine a new witness in her defamation case, calling it a tactic to delay the trial. The case has been ongoing for 24 years, highlighting the prolonged nature of judicial proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- 24-year ongoing defamation case.
- Patkar's attempt to introduce new witness denied.
- Court labels request as a delay tactic.
- Legal proceedings have faced numerous adjournments.
- Judicial integrity emphasized by the court.
New Delhi, March 18 (NationPress) In a significant win for Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena, a court in Delhi dismissed an application from social activist Medha Patkar seeking to examine an additional witness in her defamation lawsuit against him, labeling her request as "a calculated effort to delay the trial".
This litigation, which has been ongoing for 24 years, dates back to a period when LG Saxena was involved in Gujarat and had not yet taken office at Delhi’s Raj Niwas. The case was transferred to Delhi's Saket Court in 2003 following a directive from the Supreme Court.
At that time, Saxena was leading an NGO called ‘Council for Civil Liberties’ in Ahmedabad when Patkar accused him of defamation for running advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
Subsequently, Saxena initiated a defamation suit against Patkar for slandering him in a press release dated November 25, 2000, titled "True face of patriot." Last year, she received a sentence of 5 months of simple imprisonment, which was later suspended, and she was granted bail.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma of Saket Court criticized Patkar, stating, "The emergence of this witness only now, after all of the complainant’s (Patkar’s) witnesses have been examined, raises significant doubts regarding the authenticity of this request."
The court remarked, "This case has been ongoing for 24 years and the complainant (Patkar) has already presented all the witnesses initially listed at the time of her complaint. It is noteworthy that she had filed a previous application... yet failed to introduce the new witness then."
The court added, "The total lack of any mention of this witness throughout the 24-year trial indicates that it is a late addition, likely intended to artificially enhance the complainant’s case."
"Patkar has not clarified how this recent discovery of the new witness occurred, and her inability to explain this further diminishes the credibility of her request," the court noted.
Despite the application being submitted under an incorrect legal provision, the court evaluated the matter solely on its merits.
Magistrate Sharma commented, "Granting such an application without adequate justification could establish a perilous precedent. If parties are allowed to introduce new witnesses at this late stage, trials could extend indefinitely, as litigants might continuously present new witnesses whenever they find it convenient, hampering the legal process. The judicial system cannot be compromised by such tactics, especially in a case pending for over two decades."
It is important to highlight that LG Saxena’s legal counsel has pointed out that the trial has been postponed more than 94 times from June 20, 2005, to February 1, 2023, primarily due to Patkar’s absence or her requests for adjournments.
The counsel indicated that following the issuance of summons in 2005, Patkar did not show up and requested over 46 adjournments for the recording of her evidence, avoiding the legal process and only appearing before the trial court for the first time in 2012, seven years after the summons were issued.
The petition revealed that after 20 adjournments, Patkar finally appeared and completed her examination in chief, but then was absent for her cross-examination for an extended period, necessitating 24 adjournments.
