Supreme Court affirms Patkar’s defamation conviction

Supreme Court affirms Patkar’s defamation conviction

Last Updated Aug - 11 - 2025, 06:06 PM | Source : Fela News

The Supreme Court upheld the defamation sentence of Medha Patkar, waived a fine of ₹ 1 lakh and gave relief in the terms of their probation

On 11 August 2025, the Supreme Court has given Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Confirmed the sentence of Medha Patkar in a long -running defamation case recorded by Saxena in 2001. The Supreme Court reiterated the sentence given by the trial court and the decision taken by the Delhi High Court, making no changes in the verdict.

While the conviction itself stands firm, the Court offered some relief: the previously imposed ₹1 lakh penalty has been set aside. Additionally, the supervision condition requiring Patkar to appear periodically before the court has been lifted. Instead, she may now furnish bonds, simplifying the procedural burden.

This verdict follows a complex legal journey. In April 2025, a trial court convicted Patkar under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, stating her remarks were deliberately damaging and defamatory per se. The Delhi High Court later upheld that conviction in July, albeit modifying probation terms allowing her to appear virtually or through representation.

Patkar’s statements in question stemmed from a 2000 press note titled “true face of patriot,” in which she accused Saxena of issuing a bounced cheque and alleged hawala involvement remarks the courts found harmful to his reputation.

At the Supreme Court hearing, Patkar’s counsel contested the validity of key evidence pointing out that an email relied upon had not been certified under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and that two significant witnesses had been disbelieved. Despite these legal contentions, the bench remained unwilling to overturn the conviction.

while the Court upheld the conviction, it softened punitive measures voiding the fine and easing procedural requirements striking a nuanced balance between legal accountability and procedural fairness.

Share :