Delhi Court Slams Medha Patkar’s “Delay Tactics” in 24-Year-Old Defamation Case
Delhi Court Rejects Medha Patkar’s Plea in Defamation Case Against LG Saxena
Delhi LG V.K. Saxena Gets Relief in 24-Year-Old Defamation Case
In a significant legal development, a Delhi court dismissed social activist Medha Patkar’s plea to introduce a new witness in her long-pending defamation case against Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena. The court deemed the application a deliberate attempt to delay the trial, which has already been ongoing for 24 years.
The Background: A Case That Began in Gujarat
The litigation dates back to the year 2000, when V.K. Saxena was leading the Ahmedabad-based NGO ‘Council for Civil Liberties’. At the time, Saxena had published advertisements against Medha Patkar and the Narmada Bachao Andolan. In response, Patkar filed a defamation case against him.
In return, Saxena also filed a defamation case against Patkar for allegedly defaming him in a press note dated November 25, 2000, titled “True Face of Patriot.”
The Supreme Court later transferred the case to Delhi’s Saket Court in 2003, where it has been dragging on for over two decades.
Court Rejects Medha Patkar’s Plea for New Witness
On Tuesday, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma of Delhi’s Saket Court dismissed Patkar’s request to introduce an additional witness. The court observed that:
- The case has been pending for 24 years.
- All of Patkar’s listed witnesses have already been examined.
- The sudden emergence of a new witness raises doubts about its legitimacy.
Court’s Observations on Delaying Tactics
The court strongly criticized the unexplained delay in introducing a new witness, stating:
“The complete absence of any reference to this witness during the 24 years of trial suggests that it is an afterthought, possibly introduced to bolster the complainant’s case artificially.”
The court further noted that if parties are allowed to introduce new witnesses arbitrarily at such a late stage, trials would become never-ending.
Patkar’s Absences and Trial Delays
The court also acknowledged repeated delays caused by Patkar’s absence, highlighting that:
- Between June 20, 2005, and February 1, 2023, the trial was delayed over 94 times due to Patkar’s absence or adjournment requests.
- After summons were issued in 2005, she sought more than 46 adjournments before appearing in court for the first time in 2012—seven years later.
- Even after 20 adjournments, she delayed her testimony and avoided cross-examination, requesting 24 additional adjournments.
What This Means for the Case
With this ruling, LG V.K. Saxena gains significant legal relief. The court’s decision marks a turning point in the prolonged litigation, signaling a possible conclusion in the near future.
The ruling also sets a strong precedent against using procedural tactics to delay trials, ensuring that justice is not held hostage to unnecessary adjournments.
This case highlights the importance of judicial efficiency and the need to prevent unnecessary delays in long-pending litigations. With over two decades of courtroom battles, the latest ruling could push the trial toward a final resolution.
