Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
Medha Patkar – Petitioner
Versus
V.K. Saxena – Respondent
Crl. Rev.P. 163 of 2025, Crl.M.B. 904 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sridevi Panikkar, Mr. Abhimanue Shreshta, Mr. Satwik Parikh, Ms. Kritika, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gajinder Kumar, Ms. Kiran Jai and Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advs.
Criminal defamation is upheld as a valid means to protect reputation, with conviction standards requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, while ensuring the integrity of evidence and procedure in judicial reviews.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Defamation - Conviction affirmed by Appellate Court for the publication of a defamatory Press Note; sentenced to probation with conditions, including compensation to the complainant; arguments regarding evidentiary insufficiency and legal infirmities evaluated. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 106)
(B) Defamation - The court emphasized that reputation is a fundamental right under Article 21, highlighting that criminal defamation laws serve a legitimate interest in protecting individual dignity. (Paras 71, 72)
(C) Criminal Procedure - The court explained the limitations and scope of revisional jurisdiction, affirming that interference is warranted only where gross errors in findings or procedure are evident. (Paras 65, 66, 70)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted on grounds of publishing a defamatory statement against the respondent, leading to significant reputational harm; the case revolved around a Press Note published in response to a previous advertisement critical of the petioner. (Paras 4-6, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court upheld the conviction, determining that the Press Note was defamatory, emphasizing its authorship and publication in public domains. (Paras 12, 78)
Issues: Whether the evidence presented corroborated the claims of defamation, the validity of admissions from a previous withdrawn complaint, and the appropriateness of conditions imposed in the probation order. (Paras 1, 60, 106)
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed the validity of the admissions made in the previous writ petition and held that the respondent had established defamation 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The argument regarding the evidentiary burden and procedural appropriateness was clarified, underlining the significance of the trial's integrity. (Paras 70, 102, 106)
Result: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed with directions on probation. (Paras 113)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision petition initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the defamation case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. trial court's conviction details. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. respondent's defense against petitioner's arguments. (Para 14 , 19 , 38) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments on legal infirmities. (Para 15 , 16 , 31) |
| 6. court's review on jurisdiction and defamation. (Para 64 , 65 , 74) |
| 7. concluding remarks and sentence order. (Para 105 , 106 , 111 , 112) |
JUDGMENT :
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), assailing the Judgment dated 02.04.2025 and the Order on Sentence dated 08.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Court”), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 247/2024.
2. By the said Judgment, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-06 (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”), South-East District, Saket Courts, vide the Judgment dated 24.05.2024 in the complaint instituted by the respondent. The learned Appellate Court further proceeded, by the Order dated 08.04.2025, to direct release of the petitioner on probation, albeit subject to specified conditions.
3. The learned Trial Court, by its Order on Sentence dated 01.07.2024, had awarded to the petitioner a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of five months, along with a direction to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation, with a further stipulation that in default of payment, she would undergo an additional term of simple imprisonment for three months.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The genesis of the controversy lies in events dating back to the year 2000. At the relevant time, the complainant (respondent herein) was the President of the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL), a registered society stated to be actively supporting the Sardar Sarovar Project in Gujarat and exposing purported malpractices in the public and private sectors.
5. In opposition to the said project, stood the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a movement led by the petitioner herein and the NBA voiced concerns on environmental and human rights grounds.
6. On 10.11.2000, the NCCL published an advertisement in The Indian Express titled “True face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan” [Ex. CW1/D1], criticising the NBA's ideology and activities. According to the complainant/respondent, this advertisement prompted the petitioner to retaliate through a defamatory Press Note.
7. The complainant alleges that on 25.11.2000, the complainant/respondent received an email [Ex. CW1/A] from one Mr. Dilip Gohil (CW-2), a purported Rediff.com correspondent, enclosing a Press Note dated 24.11.2000 titled “True Face of a Patriot – Response to an Advertisement”. The Press Note, bearing the petitioner's name, as per the complaint, was published in Gujarati on the Rediff.com website [Ex. CW1/B and CW1/D2].
8. The complainant/respondent categorically denied the veracity of these claims raised in the Press Note and deposed that he had neither visited Malegaon nor made any donations to Lok Samiti, nor ever praised the NBA. He issued a legal notice dated 09.12.2000 [Ex. CW1/C] to the petitioner, which remained unanswered.
9. The complainant/respondent alleged that the Press Note caused considerable damage to his reputation, particularly among the Gujarati-speaking populace and supporters of the Sardar Sarovar Project. He was confronted by several individuals after the publication, seeking clarification on the alleged support extended by him to the NBA.
10. In support of his case, the complainant/respondent examined himself as CW-1, along with three other witnesses: CW-2 (Dilip Gohil), CW-3 (Nilesh Sachdev), and CW-4 (Rajesh
