'Evidentiary Gaps': After 20 Years, Delhi Court Clears Medha Patkar In VK Saxena's Defamation Case

A Delhi court on Saturday acquitted social activist Medha Patkar in a two-decade-old criminal defamation case. The complaint was filed by the current Delhi Lieutenant Governor, VK Saxena, and dates back to 2006, when he headed the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL).

The verdict, delivered by Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma at the Saket Courts, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted several critical evidentiary gaps, primarily the failure to produce the original video footage or the device used to record the allegedly defamatory statements.

The case stemmed from a televised interview on April 20, 2006. Saxena alleged that Patkar had made unsubstantiated and defamatory

remarks regarding his organisation’s involvement in the Sardar Sarovar Project. He claimed that these statements were crafted to tarnish his reputation and public standing.

However, during the trial, the court flagged “continuous changes” in the testimony regarding whether Patkar was a live panellist or if prerecorded footage was played. The lack of eyewitnesses who actually saw the interview being recorded further weakened the prosecution’s narrative. The court held that without the full, unedited context of the press conference or interview, it was impossible to make a fair determination regarding the intent or content of her speech.

It is important to distinguish this acquittal from a separate, long-running legal battle between the two figures. In August 2025, the Supreme Court upheld Patkar’s conviction in a different defamation case filed by Saxena in 2001. That case involved a press release titled “True Face of a Patriot”, in which Patkar called Saxena a “coward”. While the apex court confirmed her conviction in that instance, it notably waived the fine and modified her sentence to release on probation.

This latest acquittal on January 24 marks the end of a parallel 20-year legal saga. The court observed that the complainant failed to examine the original reporters or provide admissible electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. With this ruling, the court has essentially closed one of the final chapters of the protracted legal hostilities between the Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and the Lieutenant Governor.