Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court's decision to reject her application to introduce and examine an additional witness in her defamation case against Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.
Justice Shalinder Kaur issued a notice on the plea and sought a response from Saxena regarding the matter.
During the hearing, the Court remarked that the case has been pending for 24 years, making it one of the oldest unresolved matters. Patkar’s counsel, however, argued that there was no delay on their part.
The counsel also requested a stay on the recording of Saxena’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was scheduled for the next day. However, the Court did not pass any stay order.
Read also: Delhi High Court Ruling on Time-Bound Adjudication Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act
Section 313 of the CrPC allows courts to question an accused to provide them with an opportunity to explain the evidence against them, ensuring a fair hearing.
The case is scheduled for a hearing in May.
Background of the Case
Patkar moved the High Court against the trial court’s March 18 order, which dismissed her application, stating that it was more of a deliberate attempt to delay the trial rather than a necessity.
Saxena, who currently holds the position of Delhi LG, was leading an Ahmedabad-based NGO, the "Council for Civil Liberties," in 2000 when Patkar filed the defamation case against him. She alleged that he published advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
Saxena also filed a counter-defamation case against Patkar, accusing her of defaming him in a press note dated November 25, 2000, titled "True Face of Patriot." Patkar allegedly called Saxena a "coward" and "not a patriot." In this case, she was sentenced to five months of simple imprisonment last year. However, her sentence was later suspended, and she was granted bail.
Patkar’s Plea for a New Witness
In her ongoing defamation case against Saxena, Patkar sought to introduce a new witness, arguing that under Section 254(1) of the CrPC, she had the right to examine any witness necessary to prove her case. She maintained that there were no restrictions on this right.
However, the trial court rejected her request, highlighting that the case had already been pending for 24 years and that she had examined all witnesses originally listed in her complaint.
“The complainant has not provided any explanation as to when, how, or under what circumstances she became aware of this witness. If she was aware of the witness from the outset, she has offered no justification for the prolonged delay in summoning them. Conversely, if she claims to have only recently discovered the witness, she has not explained how such discovery occurred. This lack of explanation further weakens the credibility of her request,” the Court stated in its order.
Read also: Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Bail Plea of Parliament Security Breach Accused Manoranjan D
