SC allows Medha Patkar to withdraw plea in defamation case against Delhi L-G

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 8, 2025) refused to entertain a plea by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar challenging the Delhi High Court’s order rejecting her request to examine an additional witness in a decades-old defamation case she had filed against Delhi Lieutenant-Governor V.K. Saxena.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma said it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, following which Ms. Patkar’s counsel, Abhimanue Shreshta, withdrew the petition.

During the hearing, the Bench proposed to dismiss the plea while recording that no further action would be initiated by the respondent. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Mr. Saxena, opposed the suggestion, submitting that his client’s legal remedies should remain open.

“We are only saying that both parties will not proceed on this issue, that’s all,” Justice Sundresh clarified.

When Ms. Patkar’s counsel sought an adjournment to advance arguments, Justice Sundresh declined, stating, “No, on merits we have rejected it already. We are not entertaining on merits. If you don’t want the observation, we will not give it. Since you expressed it, we thought of facilitating you; that’s it.”

‘Put an end to this’

Addressing both counsels, Justice Sundresh observed, “With due respect to both of you, I think this is not worth it… Let’s just put an end to this.” Ms. Patkar’s counsel then sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the Bench allowed.

Ms. Patkar and Mr. Saxena, who then headed the Ahmedabad-based NGO Council for Civil Liberties, have been locked in a legal tussle since 2000, when she filed the present suit alleging that advertisements published by him defamed her and the NBA. Mr. Saxena subsequently filed two cases against her in 2001 for allegedly making derogatory remarks on a television channel and for issuing a defamatory press statement.

In the case lodged in 2000, Ms. Patkar moved an application before the trial court on February 17 seeking permission to examine an additional witness, Nandita Narain, stating that she was “relevant to the facts in the present matter.” The trial court dismissed the plea in March, observing that it was a “deliberate attempt to delay the trial” in a matter pending for 24 years.

Probation modified

The Delhi High Court on July 29 upheld the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Patkar’s application as well as her conviction, observing that no sufficient cause had been shown for the failure to produce the proposed witness during the long pendency of the proceedings.

On August 11, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision on conviction but set aside its direction requiring Ms. Patkar to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation. The apex court also modified a probation order imposed on her by directing her to furnish bonds in lieu of a prison sentence and struck down conditions mandating her supervision.