Delhi District Court
Medha Patker vs V K Saxena on 29 January, 2026
DLSE020001772003
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHAV SHARMA, JMFC06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
MEDHA PATKAR Vs. V K SAXENA
CC NO: 633718/2016
U/s 500 IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 25.05.2010
Name of the complainant : Medha Patkar,
D/o Sh. Vasant Khalolkar,
R/o C/O Narmada Bachao
Andolan, Nawalpura, Badwani,
Madhya Pradesh451551.
Date of Commission of offence : 10.11.2000
Name of the accused : V. K. Saxena,
President National Council of
Civil Liberties, 401, Vraj
Avenue, C2, Swastik Soceity,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 15.11.2025
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of orders : 29.01.2026
Digitally signed
by RAGHAV
RAGHAV SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.29
15:14:14
+0530
CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.1 of 35
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHAV SHARMA, JMFC06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI S. NO. TOPIC PAGE NUMBERS
1. FACTS OF COMPLAINT IN BRIEF 34
2. 45 DATES & PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 3. FACTS IN ISSUE 5
4. EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT/CW1 513 5. EVIDENCE OF CW2 13 6. EVIDENCE OF CW3 13
7. EVIDENCE OF CW4 1415
8. ARGUMENTS AND JUDGMENTS RELIED BY 1617 LD. COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
9. ARGUMENTS AND JUDGMENTS RELIED BY 1718 LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
10. FINDING ON FACTS IN ISSUE 1933
11. CONCLUSION 3334 11. JUDGMENT 35 Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.29 15:14:31 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.2 of 35 COMPLAINT IN BRIEF
1. The complainant is a social worker and a founder of grass root people's movement commonly known as Narmada Bachao Andolan (herein after referred as NBA) working for ensuring and protecting the rights of tribals, peasants and dam oustees of the entire Narmada Valley in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
The complainant was appointed a member of World Commission on Dams (1998 2000). She has been conferred with various national and international awards.
2. That a publication was made in the form of advertisement in columns of daily newspaper "Indian Express" by accused no.1 and the same appeared in New Delhi late city edition of Indian Express on Friday, November 10, 2000. The said publication also appeared in several other editions of the newspaper. The publication under the heading of "True face of Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan" leveled a serious, false and defamatory imputations against complainant. Very specific and defamatory imputations were made against the complainant as it was stated that "NBA is passing confidential documents related to projects of National Importance to the Foreign People with the sole objective to halt the progress of nation". The imputations portrayed was that NBA was passing confidential/secret documents to foreign sources for causing detriment to national development. The said imputations gravely injured the reputation of NBA and the complainant. Another false imputation Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA Date:
CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.3 of 35 SHARMA 2026.01.29 15:14:44 +0530 leveled against NBA was that it was funded through "hawala transactions". The said impression created in the mind of general public that complainant was getting illegal funds through / for NBA. The said advertisement further mentioned and asked the readers "be cautions before giving any helping hand to such element". According to complainant, this statement portrayed her and NBA as evil of the society which is clear from the logo of National Council for Civil Liberties containing term "Attacking evils".
3. Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated 14.11.2000 asking the accused to retract the false imputations and publish an apology. The accused no. 1 sent a reply dated 16.11.2000 to the notice. The said letter was again replied by complainant through his advocate. Another reply dated 05.12.2000 was received from accused no.1 in which it was stated that the publication did not contain any false/defamatory imputations.
DATES & PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
4. On 25.05.2010 the present complaint was received by Ld. CMM, Delhi from the court of Ld. CMM Ahmedabad pursuant to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C was framed upon the accused on 02/08/2011 to Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:15:08 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.4 of 35 which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FACTS IN ISSUE
5. From the allegations of the complainant following facts emerge as facts in issue: Fact in issue no. 1: That the accused had published an advertisement on 10.11.2000 in newspaper The Indian Express titled "True face of Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan".
Fact in issue no. 2: That the accused by publishing such advertisement published imputations concerning complainant and intended to harm or knew that the same would harm or had reason to believe that the same would harm the reputation of complainant.
EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT/CW1
6. Complainant/CW1 in her examination in chief deposed:
"I filed my complaint which is already Ex.CW1/A and which bears my signature at point A. I am a social activist, working for the cause of justice, social and economic, of Farmers, laborers, Adiwasis etc. I have done my B.Sc. and Master in Social work from various colleges and institutes in Mumbai. I have been working on various issues in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharasthra, Gujarat and across India. I achieved my degree and before that National merit in the Matriculate Examination. I stood first in the urban and Rural Community Development in which I did my master in Tata Institute of Social Science, I started worked with the urban slums in Mumbai since 1976. Where I witnessed the Inhuman conditions of those misplaced from the rural areas compelled to live in the unhealthy and unlivable environment. I worked with the Adiwasi communities in Gujarat, various districts Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:15:20 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.5 of 35 where I came to know about the massive displacement and environment impact of the Narmada Project. I have been working with the affected communities of Sardar Sarovar and other developments projects seeking full and fair rehabilitation with justice and due process of law.
I have been felicitated with a number of National and International awards for raising the issues and achieving partly just rehabilitation and environmental compensation, and worked on the development paradigm. The awards include. The Ambedkar Award, Mahatma Phule Award, Dr. M A Thomas award and other national awards as well as a award from Amenesty International awards, BBC Award, right livelihood award (alternative nobel) and other.
I belong to the people's movement, which I am founder of, called Narmada Bachao Andolan and I am involved in networking various other movements across India. NBA has a number of support groups and thousands of supporters across the country till date and the movement continues for last 32 years, fighting various Court cases and mass actions.
It was on 10.11.2000 that Mr. V. K. Saxena present in the court today published a defamatory Advertisement already Ex. CW1/C in the newspaper Indian Express (Late City Edition) dated 10.11.2000 already Ex.CW1/B and also in other editions. The advertisement is published by him as President of National Council for Civil Liberties through which he has made a number of defamatory imputations questioning the sincerity, integrity and honesty of myself. The said advertisement accuses me as engaged in Hawala Transactions on the basis of a receipt of a cheque and letter of thanks published therein. The said receipt and letter is from Lok Samiti, Malegaon, Nasik, Maharashtra. There is no signature of mine and the same has nothing to do with me as a person. I have been involved with various activities of struggle and reconstruction which are run with honesty and support of various individual and organizations across the country who too are known to be honest and law abiding citizens. Since, I have nothing to do with any Hawala Transactions whatsoever, this imputations has affected my reputation and fame and it has caused immense harm to the same. It has given me pain and agony. The same advertisement having raised a appeal for all to be cautious while giving a helping hand to the cause which too is defamatory.
The advertisement also has blamed me for some letter claiming falsely that there was an exchange of some confidential documents, which was absolutely false and has nothing to do with me or my involvement. All this has also created an impression of me working against National interest while I have never compromised with the National interest and have been working within the frame work of constitution for equity and justice as well as fundamental rights of all citizens especially the poorDigitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.29 15:15:34 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.6 of 35 and disadvantaged. The abovesaid allegation made with a deliberate intention of defaming me and my work and organization associated with is nothing less than defamation. This was confirmed by various well meaning citizens, including Mr. Anoop Saraiya who raised questions and informed me of the said advertisement which was a publication in the open domain.
I herewith state that Indian Express, reputed daily published a non conspicuous clarification to begin with and thereafter, an apology on realizing the falsity of the advertisement. It was following this that I withdrew the complaint accused no.2 and 3, editor and publisher of Indian Express.
The advertisement has all characteristic and contents which fall in the category of defamatory publication under IPC 499 and hence I have filed this complaint.
I have been working on Official committees of different governments and was a member of the World Commission of Dams that studied this social and environment impact of large dams world over. I have also been an academician having done my research on Economic Development and its impact on traditional societies and have taught students at post graduate level. I have been a participant in various seminar conference and have written a number of articles in various books. I have been working on the issue of Narmada Dams which, especially Sardar Sarovar has became controversial till date on the issued allocation of waters to the corporate vis avis the needy communities. Mr. Saxena having associates with the corporates over years, as I came to know much later, obviously tried to protect their interest against those of the common people especially Adiwasis and farmers. He has through advertisement tried to suppress and oppress the people struggle for justice distancing our supporters from the Narmada Valley and elsewhere. This has harmed the caused I have been working for which in turn have affected lakhs of people who share the common cause. Mr. Saxena was a Chief Executive Officer of Dholera Project of JK Group and Adani Group in Gujarat as I came to know on inquiry. He is also involved in another criminal case filed before the Magistrate Court in Ahmadabad by the Government of Gujarat in relation of physical attach and molestation of me inside the Sabarmati Ashram in 2002, during a piece meeting with tens of witnesses."Digitally signed
7. In her cross examination, complainant/CW1 stated:
by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.29 15:15:49 +0530 "I am one of the founder of Narmada Bachao Andolan.
It is correct that the incident of Sabramati Ashram mentioned in my examination in chief took place on 07.04.2002. It is correct that I had filed a complaint CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.7 of 35 on 09.04.2002 through fax. It is correct that besides the defamation case, the complaint filed on 09.04.2002 was the only case filed against the accused. It is wrong to suggest that in the complaint dated 09.04.2002 there are allegation of molestation (voltd. that there are allegations of molestation as well as of physical assault). It is wrong to suggest that in the complaint dated 09.04.2002 there are allegation of molestation.
The witness is confronted with certified copy of complaint dated 09.04.2002. After perusal of complaint, the witness stated that though the word molestation is not used, but the overall context shows that it was molestation. The copy of said document is marked as MarkA. It is wrong to suggest that I remained silent for the next 10 years after filing this complaint dated 09.04.2002. I do not remember if any application for further investigation in this case was filed by me or on my behalf. (voltd. that after filing of the complaint, it was the prosecution which was looking after the case).
The witness is shown a document which is marked as MarkB. After looking at the document, the witness admitted that an application was filed by her counsel under her signature. The English translation of documents marked A and B placed on record. I cannot say if there are any allegations of molestation in the application Mark B. I cannot say whether the said application was dismissed or not. (Voltd. that the case is still pending in the Sessions Court). I cannot say with certainty whether an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. of alternation of charged was filed on 09.08.2010.
The witness is shown one application in Gujarati stated to be the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. the same is marked as MarkC. After looking at the document, the witness stated that she is not aware if the said application was "not pressed" by her and was withdrawn (Voltd. that numerous documents were signed and since the document in Gujarati, she was not aware). The signature on documents Mark C are similar to my signature but I did not write any comment on it. I cannot say whether the comments on the application were written by my Advocate. It incorrect to suggest that I am deliberately denying my knowledge of the withdrawal of the application. I cannot say whether the accused is facing trial for commission of offence U/s 354 IPC. (Voltd. that the accused is facing trial but do not know the exact sections, but the accusations are of physical assault). I cannot say whether any of the orders of dismissal were challenged before the Appellant Court and whether orders have attained the finality. (Voltd. that is a state). It is correct that I had engaged an Advocate who was assisting the PP. It is wrong to suggest that I have deliberately and intentionally concealed the fact of the case to tarnish the image of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am habitual of misleading the courts of law Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:16:02 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.8 of 35 at all levels. It is wrong to suggest that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 11.05.2011 in para no.145 gave adverse findings against NBA. (Voltd. This judgment was reviewed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the observations of para no.145 of the said judgment were modified. Moreover, the basis on which the observations were made in para no.145 has now come in our favour). I can provide the details of the review petition and the observations made but I do not have the details right now. I cannot say whether vide order dated 03.05.2012, the review petition was dismissed (Voltd. that but the paragraph no.145 was modified). It is wrong to suggest that no paragraph either deleted or modified by way of order of review dated 03.05.2012. (Voltd. I was not directly involved in this case. The review order dated 03.05.2012 is marked as MarkD).
The witness is shown the copy of judgment dated 06.03.2002 cited as 2002(2)GLH372. The adverse comments in this judgment are a matter of record. I cannot comment on the observation on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. There are other judgments where our role has been appreciated (I had no role in this said case). The said judgment is marked as MarkE. It is wrong to suggest that there are no such judgment wherein our role is appreciated. I will place the copy on record. It is wrong to suggest that I had buried the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by digging it pit in front of District Court, Badwani, MP and had written on it "Anyay ki kabr". It is correct that we had formed one "Anyay ki kabr".
Chitrarupa Palit @ Sylvi has been activist of NBA and is now working with Aam Admi Party. I cannot say whether the defamatory advertisement appearing in the Indian Express dated 10.11.2000 was signed by Sylvi or not. It is correct that I did not go through the said letter/ advertisement till it appeared in the newspaper, published by the accused. I talked Chitrarupa Palit @ Sylvi about this advertisement. I did not ask her that since the letter was false, she should appear as a witness with me in this case. Again said, I did not ask her to appear as a witness. I had no discussion about falsity of the said advertisement Ex.CW1/C. I am not aware whether any complaint has been filed by Chitrarupa Palit against the accused with respect to the advertisement in question. I cannot say whether any risk analysis was done by NBA as mentioned in the advertisement Ex.CW1/C. I have never seen any such risk analysis. I did not discuss with Chitrarupa Palit as to why risk Analysis was described as confidential in the said advertisement/letter because she has been working independently. It is correct that Lok Samiti, Male Gaon, Maharashtra mentioned in letter Ex.CW1/C is one of our supporter. I cannot say whether the Lok Samiti had received a payment of Rs.40,000/ from Lal Bhai Group on behalf of NBA. (Voltd. That as far as I know, the receipt is published by the accused is for a cheque Digitally signed which was issued for a nonexistent account and it was dishonored). by RAGHAV SHARMA RAGHAV Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.29 15:16:14 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.9 of 35 NBA is a social organization. It is a people's movement and it is not registered. When the advertisement/letter appeared in the newspaper, I did not enquire from Chitrarupa Palit if the said letter was written by her as it did not matter as to whether she wrote letter or not. It is wrong to suggest that I had inquired from Chitrarupa Palit about writing this letter and she admitted to have written this letter and I have deliberately kept her away from this case. I do not know who are Mr. Voegele and Mr. Pfeiffer. I did not ask Chitrarupa Palit as to why these documents were sent to foreigners and not to Government of India. (Voltd. I cannot say that the said documents were not shared with Government of India). I cannot say whether any private company or German government was willing to give guarantee for Hydro project, Maheshwar, MP. I cannot say whether due to lobbing by NBA, the guarantees were withdrawn. It is wrong to suggest that I was opposing at the behest of world commission of dams. I cannot say if WCD was funded by many foreign thermal power manufacturing companies including Enron.
I am a trustee of Jan Sahyog Trust. The right livelihood award was received in the name of late Baba Amte and myself and since NBA did not want to take the foreign money associated, it was deposeted into the specially form trust i.e. Jan Sahyog Trust with the condition that it will not support NBA.
It is wrong to suggest that NBA is opposed to construction of all dams in India. We do not oppose any dam unless it causes injutice to people and destruction to nature, in which case, we question it in legal and constitutional frame work. NBA has a bank account. I do not remember whether it is mentioned in the bank account of NBA that it is a social organization. (Voltd. That I have not opened the account). It is wrong to suggest that NBA is neither a grassroot organization nor a people's movement but a political organization. At present, I am not a member of any political party. I was a member of a Am Aadmi Party for a very short duration of a few months. I had contested parliamentary election in 2014 from Am Admi Party from a constituency in Mumbai. I did not win the election. I cannot say whether any person of Narmada Valley has filed any complaint or lodged any FIR against me or NBA for preventing them from accepting the compensation amount. (Voltd. that Narmada Valley runs 1 lakh square Km). It is wrong to suggest that there were several complaints against me and NBA in this respect. It is wrong to suggest that workers of NBA had assaulted all such complainants. (Voltd. That NBA is a perfectly non violent organization).
The witness is shown copy of a news article is marked as MarkE. I am not aware of any such news item of India Today magazine. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately denying the knowledge of this article as I have not taken any action against India Today magazine. Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:16:24 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.10 of 35 I know Mr. Rahul Banerjee and Ms.Subhadra Khapde only to the extent that they were working for Adivasis in 1980's. They were not a part of NBA at any time. (Voltd. That Rahul Banerjee was working in some of the villages affected by Narmada dam). It is wrong to suggest that Rahul Banerjee and Subhadra Khapde were strong supporters of NBA. (Voltd. They were supporting the Adivasis). I am not aware if they had written any book titled "Facilitating Kansari". It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally denying knowledge of this book as aspirations were cast against me in this book. (Voltd. That I have never seen the said book which is marked as MarkF). It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally denying the knowledge of this book as I have not taken any action against the authors. It is wrong to suggest that I took all illegal and violent methods to prevent rehabilitation of project affected people from rehabilitation and construction of dams like threatening the officer concerned telling them not to come to the Valley or they will face its consequences.
Q. Is it correct that to achieve your antisocial and anti development goals, you sought indulgement of different court and Foreign institutions, so that no rehabilitation be done by the government and Sardar Sarovar Project be stopped?
Question disallowed being vague.
It is wrong to suggest that Supreme Court had appointed a committee of V. K. Shunglu to know the status of project affected families of the Project. (Voltd. That the committee was appointed by the then Prime Minister). Q. Is it correct that you created hurdles in the working of the said committee and thus, prevented them to execute the assignment given to them?
Question disallowed being vague.
Q. Is it correct that you described the members of the said committees, thieves and broker of the Government?
Question disallowed being irrelevant.
Q. Did you support any of the dams in Narmada Valley? A. Supporting dams is not my work. I work for supporting people and their just rehabilitation.
It is wrong to suggest that I had created hurdles that in rehabilitation of displaced persons. I had once attended a seminar in Barcley but I cannot say whether it was on 14.11.2010. It is wrong to suggest that in the said seminar I had sought foreign support for opposing the dams in Narmada Valley. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately denying these facts.
The World Commission on dams was formed to undertake study on dams across the world. It consisted representatives of all stakeholders including the dams builders, construction companies and the World Bank. It is wrong to suggest that WCD used to oppose all dams in India against Government policy. RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:16:34 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.11 of 35 Q. Did you issue a press release on 24.11.2000 under the heading "True face of patriot" in response to the advertisement in Indian Express which is the subject matter of this case?
Question disallowed as the said press release dated 24.11.2000 is the subject matter of another case between the parties wherein the witness is an accused.
I am not interested in seeing any such press release as the court has already disallowed the question.
Q. is it correct that many national and local leaders have given in writing that they do not want any association with NBA and they also wanted a ban on NBA?
Question disallowed being irrelevant.
It is wrong to suggest that I am opposing Sardar Sarovar and Maheshwar project in Gujarat and in MP which are life line of the respective States under the garb of welfare of people living around.
Q. I put to you that in the advertisement given by the accused, there was nothing that NBA is passing State secrets to anybody. It was only the risk analysis document which was described by the author to be confidential?
A. It is a matter of record.
I had given a notice to the accused to which he had replied. I do not remember the dates.
I have read the contents of the complaint Ex.CW1/A filed by me and to my knowledge, it is correct.
I have not seen any documents of risk analyses. I have not mentioned in the complaint that I had not seen any documents of risk analyses.
The witness is confronted with portion from A to A of her examination in chief. It is correct that I have not mentioned these facts in my complaint Ex.CW1/A. It is correct that I had issued a notice dated 14.11.2000 (already exhibited as Ex.CW1/D in presummoning evidence) on behalf of myself and on behalf of Chitrarupa Pallit. The said notice is today Ex.CW1/A1. Again said, I had not issued the notice on behalf of Chitrarupa Pallit but it was issued by an advocate for both. Again said, the said notice was issued by the advocate at the instance of Chitrarupa Pallit. I had read that notice. I never objected to my name being put in it. I do not remember if any reply was given by the accused to this notice.
The witness is confronted with reply to the notice dated 05.12.2000 ( Ex.CW 1/3 in presummoning evidence). The same is now Ex.CW1/A2. I do not remember if I had read this before filing the complaint. (Voltd. That my advocate may have read it).
I do not know what is meant by a hawala transaction.
Q. I put to you that Hawala transaction is the transaction where original Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA 15:16:44 Date: 2026.01.29 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.12 of 35 beneficiary is not identifiable and has nothing to do with funds received from foreign country?
Question is disallowed being irrelevant.
The address of NBA in 2000 was "Care of 62, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh". I cannot say if Lok Samiti can issue a certificate under Section 80 G Income Tax Act for funds received on behalf of NBA.
It is wrong to suggest that there is nothing defamatory in the advertisement and just to take revenge from the accused, I have filed the present complaint." EVIDENCE OF CW2
8. CW2 deposed in his examination in chief:
"I am the summoned witness in the present case. Today I have brought the summoned record i.e. relevant page of Indian Express Newspaper dated 10.11.2000 Mumbai Edition which is Ex. CW2/1 and relevant page of Indian Express Newspaper dated 11.11.2000, New Delhi edition, which is Ex. CW2/2 both of which contain advertisement title "True face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan". I have not brought Indian Express Newspaper dated 10.11.2000 New Delhi Late City Edition as the same was not archived inadvertently. I have also brought certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act which is Ex. CW2/3 pertaining to the aforementioned exhibits."
EVIDENCE OF CW3
9. CW3 deposed in his examination in chief:
"Today I have brought the summoned record in CT NO. 613940/2016, title as V K Saxena vs. Medha Patkar. I have brought statement of CW1 Sh. Vinay Kumar Saxena from the above CT case Ex.CW3/A (colly running into 12 pages) (OSR). I have also brought the summoned record of CT NO. 618973/2016 titled as V K Saxena vs. Medha Patkar. I have brought statement of CW1 Sh. Vinay Kumar Saxena from the above CT case Ex.CW3/B (colly running into 11 pages) (OSR). Copy of document titled "NCCL A noiseless uproar" which is Ex.CW1/A in CT NO. 618973/2016 now Ex.CW3/C (OSR) (running into 21 pages)." Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.29 15:16:52 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.13 of 35 EVIDENCE OF CW4
10. CW4 (inadvertently mentioned as CW3 in the evidence) deposed in examination in chief:
"I am Professor at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences Delhi which I joined recently after superannuation as Head of the Department Gastrornterology, AIIMS, Delhi. In November 2000, I was working as faculty in the same department at AIIMS, Delhi. I have known complainant since the early 90's and first I met her for the first time in 1993.
At this stage, witness is shown Ex.CW1/C and submits that he recognize the document. I saw this advertisement in 10 th November 2000. There were two things mentioned (1) Narmada Bachao Andolan lead by Ms. Medha Patkar is passing secret documents related to the project of National importance to a foreign national/agency and (2) Narmada Bachao Andolan is getting money from business houses through hawala transactions. Upon seeing the advertisement, I was really amazed because I used to respect Medha for the work she was doing for tribals. Q. What did you feel about the complainant after you saw the above mentioned advertisement?
A. I personally feel that a leader of a mass movement should rely on people and not on industrialist and they should put pressure on government by advancing people movement at a higher stage rather than building pressure through outside agencies. So for a brief period her prestige has gone down in my eye.
I was aware that Mr. Prashant Bhushan appearing in cases for Ms. Medha Patkar so I enquired from Mr. Bhushan to verify these facts. After sometime, he told me that these secret documents are not government documents and these documents were prepared by Narmada Bachao Andolan and the receipt of money was given by one Lok Samiti. This clarified my doubt and I forget about the issue."
11. In his cross examination, CW4 stated:
"Q. What do we understand by your statement i.e. "So for a brief period her prestige has gone down in my eye". Please explain your statement? A. I have already made a statement that there were two clear cut issues emerging out of the advertisement referred in this matter (1) that Narmada Bachao Andolan is trying to put pressure on Indian government related to a project through foreign Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:17:03 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.14 of 35 agencies / nationals and (2) they were receiving money from donors through hawala transactions, so if this is correct definitely it goes against Narmada Bachao Andolan and till such time Mr. Bhushan gave me a clarification on these two issues prestige of Ms. Medha Patkar was eroded to some extent in my eye.
Q. Is it correct that you did not have personal knowledge about (1) that Narmada Bachao Andolan is trying to put pressure on Indian government related to a project through foreign agencies / nationals and (2) they were receiving money from donors through hawala transactions?
A. This information I got from advertisement and clarification I sought from Mr. Prashant Bhushan who was representing Narmada Bachao Andolan. I have no such personal information.
I had sought clarification from Prashat Bhushan on the very same date when I saw the above mentioned advertisement. I was never involved in Narmada Bachao Andolan. I was aware about the project i.e. Sardar Sarovar Dam, just like any other citizen. I never met the complainant before filing the present case. Q. How did you decide to become a witness in the matter or somebody invited to become witness in the matter?
A. Probably, Mr. Bhushan has discussed the issue with Narmada Bachao Andolan and as I sought clarification from him, he might have included me as witness.
I had not given any consent to become witness. Infact I got to know about the same when I received summon from the court. It is true that I had raised the above mentioned issue of advertisement with Mr. Prashant Bhushan. I have no idea about Lok Samiti. However, it was only mentioned in the advertisement. The term receipt of money was mentioned in the advertisement. The advertisement itself says that Lok Samiti have received funds for Narmada Bachao Andolan through a cheque. I never enquired Lok Samiti about truth of above allegations. I have no knowledge about Lok Samiti. I only contacted Mr. Prashant Bhushan regarding this issue. I did not seek clarification from any one except Prashant Bhushan. My source of information was only the advertisement published in Indian Express on 10 th November 2000.
After seeing the advertisement in the newspaper of 10.11.2000 I rang up Mr. Prashant Bhushan for certain clarifications till that time he had not seen the advertisement so he gave me a call after 1015 mins and clarified those issues which I had raised and already mentioned in my chief. I did not discuss this issue with any other person during this period. After getting the clarifications from Mr. Prashant Bhushan, I did not have any negative marking on complainant's reputation.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan was doing some cases for NBA so I sought clarifications from him. I have never discussed anything with complainant related with advertisement dated 10.11.2000." Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAVSHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:17:11 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.15 of 35 ARGUMENTS AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
12. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the accused has not disputed the fact that he had published the advertisement rather, the same has come to be admitted during cross examination. Ld. Counsel argued that it was evident from the bare perusal of advertisement that complainant had nothing to do with three documents mentioned in the advertisement. She stated that the name of complainant has only been used maliciously in the advertisement to defame her. Ld. Counsel argued that the two imputations "NBA passing on confidential documents related to projects of National Importance to foreign people", "with the sole objective to halt project of nation" were repeated in the so called questions at the bottom of advertisement by accused deliberately to create impression in the mind of an ordinary person that secret documents were being passed to foreigners, that too with an intention to harm the nation. Ld. Counsel further argued that despite the letter itself being clear that Ms. Palit had sent the documents prepared by her, accused deliberately and maliciously chose the words to create above impression. Ld. Counsel argued that bottom of the advertisement contained several defamatory imputations including that complainant was responsible for delaying the projects or causing thousands of crores in cost over runs and so on. Ld. Counsel argued that no evidence was given to prove this imputation. In addition, Ld. Counsel stated that CW4 through his testimony has proved that estimation of complainant was lowered and her character and integrity RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:17:23 +0530 Page No.16 of 35 came into question which proves that she had suffered defamation.
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on following judgments in support of her case;
1) Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97
2) Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab AIR 1970 SC 1372
3) Sukra Mehto vs. Bas Deo Kumar Mehto 1971 (1) SCC 885
4) M.A.Romugam vs. Kitto 2009 (1) SCC 101
5) Jefri J Diermeier vs. State of West Bengal 2010 (6) SCC 243
6) Bando Pant Satyappa Sangle vs. Raghunath Ram Chandra Bide
7) M.P. Narayana Pillai vs. M.P. Chacko 1986 SCC Online KER 322
8) B.M.Thimmaiah vs. Smt. T.M. Rukmini AIR 2013 KAR 81
9) Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India 2003 8SCC 413
10) National Council for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India 2007 6 SCC 506
11) Pritam Chand vs. Kamal Saini 2023, SCC Online J&K 1282 ARGUMENTS AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
14. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the publication made by accused is not defamatory and the same was issued in public interest by NCCL. The language of the advertisement clearly indicate that the same does not contain any avermentDigitally which by RAGHAV RAGHAVsigned SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:17:37 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.17 of 35 could harm the reputation of any person. Ld. Counsel argued that the advertisement nowhere states/alleges that NBA was passing "State secrets" involving national security to foreign forces. Ld. Counsel argued that such interpretation was only a misconception and is being highlighted by complainant on her own. Ld. Counsel further argued that the term "confidential document" has been used only because the letter of Ms. Chitrupa Palit specifies so. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused had done its due diligence by attaching the receipt of Lok Samiti and letter dated 13.10.1999 with the advertisement. In addition, Ld. Counsel argued that advertisement no where allege that NBA or complainant was receiving foreign donation or money from foreign sources. Ld. Counsel argued that complainant was trying to attribute these false allegations to the accused when nothing even remotely to the same has been mentioned in the advertisement.
15. Ld. Counsel for the accused relied on following judgments in support of her case;
1) Shahed Kamal & Ors vs. M/s A.Surti Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors Crl. Appeal NO. 2033 of 2025
2) Jefri J Diermeier vs. State of West Bengal 2010 (6) SCC 243
3) Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97
4) Bijoy Kumar Moni vs. Paresh Manna and Ors Crl Appeal No. 5556 of 2024 Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:17:48 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.18 of 35 FINDING ON FACTS IN ISSUE:
16. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to cull out the grievances of the complainant as specified by her in her complaint. It is the grievance of the complainant that accused has published imputations which has gravely injured her reputation and reputation of the NBA. She has alleged that the accused stated that "NBA is passing on confidential documents related to projects of national importance to the foreign people with sole objection to halt the progress of nation ". It is the case of complainant that this imputation has portrayed NBA as passing on confidential / secret documents to foreign sources for causing detriment to the national development. It is this imputation which the complainant has taken grievance of.
17. It is further the grievance of the complainant that the accused had also published another false imputation that the NBA was funded through "hawala transactions". She has alleged that this imputation has gravely harmed her reputation, as it intended to create an impression that the complainant was receiving illegal funds through/for NBA.
18. The complainant further alleged that it was imputed by the accused that the money received by NBA through "Lok Samiti" was some illegal money/funding. She, in her complaint alleged that this imputation was serious in nature, as it conveyed that Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:17:56 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.19 of 35 NBA was receiving illegal money from foreign sources. She alleged in her complaint that by making such imputations the accused conveyed that the complainant was engaged in some sort of illegal activities and was working against the interest of country. The complainant has further stated that the NBA and she has been has been portrayed as evil by the accused in the advertisement issued by him.
19. The advertisement which is in issue in the present case is an advertisement published by the accused on 10.11.2020 in the newspaper namely "Indian Express (late City edition)". The original copy of the said newspaper was tendered by the complainant in her examination in chief as Ex.CW1/B and she further called an authorized representative from Indian Express, who was examined as CW2, who tendered in evidence the said advertisement as Ex.CW2/1 and Ex.CW2/2 i.e. relevant page of Indian Express Newspaper dated 10.11.2000 (Mumbai Edition) and relevant page of Indian Express Newspaper dated 11.11.2000 (New Delhi Edition).
20. This advertisement i.e. Ex.CW1/C, Ex.CW2/1 and Ex.CW2/2 have not been disputed by the accused during cross examination of the complainant. Rather, the same has been admitted to be true and published by accused, as the accused placed due reliance on the same and justified it during cross examination of complainant. Further, the AR of Indian Express i.e. CW2 was not even cross examined by the accused. Therefore, as far as the advertisement is concerned, the same stands RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.20 of 35 15:18:08 +0530 proved by the admission of the accused as well as by the fact that accused did not dispute the same at all during the evidence.
21. The complainant, in her complaint, has taken the objection that by making the imputation that "NBA is passing on confidential documents related to projects of national importance to the foreign people with sole objection to halt the progress of nation" the accused has created an impression that it was the complainant and NBA who were passing on confidential documents relating to and involving the economic development of the country to foreign sources. She has alleged that this imputation has gravely injured her and NBA's reputation in the minds of the general public.
22. While above is the assertion of the complainant, however, a careful reading of the advertisement would show that the accused had not attributed any such act to the complainant personally, nor did he at all say or impute that the complainant or NBA was passing secret documents to the foreign persons infact he only stated the documents to be confidential as author of the letter, Ms. Chitrupa Palit, had herself described them as the same. The statement in the advertisement is directed towards NBA as an organization and not to the complainant. The advertisement specifically names Ms. Chitrupa Palit of NBA as the person who sent the documents to foreign nationals namely Mr. Kurt Voegele and Mr. Hansruedi Pfeiffer of Switzerland, and even annexed a copy of said letter dated 09.09.1999 written by her. The said letter Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:18:18 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.21 of 35 forms part of the advertisement itself. Such explicit naming of the individuals concerns and the supporting documents made part of the publication itself; clearly demonstrates that the accused neither made or intend to make the complainant personally responsible nor can the words used be reasonably construed to impute that complainant herself passed on confidential documents.
23. Before moving further, it would be appropriate to examine complainant's own pleading in her complaint qua the letter mentioned in the advertisement. Upon examination of her pleadings in her complaint, it becomes evident that the complainant herself accepted the authenticity of the letter mentioned in the advertisement and that she also accepted its authorship by Ms. Chitrupa Palit. In her complaint, she states that "in support of same false imputation a letter of one Chitrupa Palit, a devoted worker of NBA, is reproduced in the publication as a purported proof of accusation". She further adds that "the said letter which has been published as a purported proof of such grave accusation, infact, does not indicate any such thing. The confidential document referred in the publication is, infact,' risk analysis document' prepared by NBA itself and not any official or confidential document and its disclosure to foreign sources can not in any way compromise national interest". These very statements of the complainant show that she not only admitted the genuineness of the letter but also sought to justify its contents. She did not dispute that such a letter existed or that it was written by Ms. Chitrupa Palit. On Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:18:28 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.22 of 35 the contrary, she attempted to interpret and defend the document's nature by asserting that it was a risk analysis document prepared by NBA itself.
24. From the pleadings of complainant, it clearly emerges that she was aware of the existence and the contents of the said letter and was aware/had knowledge about the subject matter referred therein. Her understanding of nature and purpose of the document, that it was a risk analysis document prepared by NBA and that forwarding to the foreign entity was legitimate; clearly demonstrates a familiarity with the document and its genesis within NBA.
25. While such was the stand of complainant in her pleadings; in her cross examination she substantially changed her stand and stated "I can not say whether the defamatory advertisement appearing in the Indian Express dated 10.11.2000 was signed by Sylvia or not. It is correct that I had not gone through the letter / advertisement till it appeared in the newspaper published by accused. I talked to Chitrupa Palit about the letter/advertisement. I did not ask her since the letter was false, she should appear as a witness with me. Again said, I did not ask her to appear as a witness. I had no discussion about the falsity of the said advertisement Ex.CW1C". Further, she deposed "I can not say whether any risk analysis was done by NBA as mentioned in the NBA Ex.CW1/C. I have never seen any such risk analysis. I did not discuss with Chitrupa Palit as to why risk analysis was described Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.23 of 35 15:18:37 +0530 as confidential in the said advertisement/letter because she has been working independently".
26. The above statements of complainant in her cross examination are wholly inconsistent with her own assertion in the complaint. Whereas in the complaint, she sought to explain the nature of the document and justified its communication abroad; in her crossexamination she pleads complete ignorance of its existence or authenticity. In the complaint she took the position that the document referred was indeed the "risk analysis document prepared by NBA", thereby admitting the knowledge of both its preparation and purpose. However, but in the witness box, she declared that she never saw any such risk analysis document and that she can not say whether it was prepared by NBA. These two stances are irreconcilable. These contradictions are not minor or peripheral; they go to the very root of complainant's credibility. When a witness in her complaint makes a detailed statement about a documentits nature, origin and purposeand later in her crossexamination states that she neither saw it nor can she say as to who prepared the same; it renders her earlier statement speculative and inconsistent. It appears that the change in stand of complainant is for the convenience of litigation.
27. The earlier statements of complainant were affirmative and reasoned; they could only have been made if she had prior familiarity with the letter and the RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA 15:18:47 +0530 Date: 2026.01.29 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.24 of 35 document enclosed therein. The subsequent plea of ignorance is therefore, an after thought and diminishes the veracity of her testimony. If complainant indeed had no knowledge of such letter or document, there was no occasion for her to justify or explain it in her complaint. The very attempt to interpret the "risk analysis document"
as the NBA's own and to argue that its disclosure did not harm national interest pre supposes knowledge and understanding of the same. When the complainant had once accepted the same, she could not now retract from the same in her cross examination and plead ignorance.
28. It appears from the evidence that the letter reproduced by the accused was genuine; its authorship by Ms. Chitrupa Palit stands undisputed, and the complainant's own shifting statements strengthen that inference. The contradiction in the statements of the complainant as noted above reflect, that the statements made by the accused qua the letter were not false or baseless. Rather, they were grounded on actual correspondence emanating from a member of NBA and published as such.
29. Moving further, it now needs to be seen whether the accused had imputed any such imputation upon the complainant as alleged by her in her complaint. The advertisement in question, when read as a whole, makes it clear that the statements and allegations therein are directed towards the organization "Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)" and the named individuals such as Ms. Chitrupa Palit and Ms. RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:18:56 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.25 of 35 Arundhati Roy. The complainant's name appears only once, in the heading of the advertisement, and there is no reference to her anywhere in the body where substantive assertions or allegations are actually made out.
30. On a plain reading, the accused has sought to criticize the functioning of the NBA by attributing certain acts to that organization such as the alleged passing on of confidential documents to foreign individuals, the alleged non registration of the NBA to avoid disclosure of accounts and the alleged receipt of funds through hawala channels. Each of these imputations is explicitly made qua the NBA. The accused has even cited purported letters of one Ms. Chitrupa Palit as evidence and attached receipts purportedly issued by Lok Samiti. These documents, by their very nature and authorship, show that the statements concern the internal working of NBA and its associates, not the complainant in her individual capacity.
31. The limited mention of the complainant's name in the heading--"True face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan"--by itself does not encompasses scope of every allegation against her personally. The heading, at most, identifies the organizational movement being referred to; however, the imputations contained in the body of the publication are all contextualized in relation to NBA. The content, the tone, and statements referred to within the text entirely focuses on the NBA's conduct and activities as an organization. There is no mention that the Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:19:04 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.26 of 35 complainant herself was engaged in or had authorized any of the alleged acts.
32. Under section 499 IPC it is essential that imputations has concern with complainant/any person must be shown that the words complained of, directly or indirectly refer to and lower the moral or intellectual character of the complainant. In the present case, no such nexus is established. The complainant, by seeking to read herself into statements directed against NBA, is effectively substituting herself for the organization, which she cannot do.
33. The complainant's interpretation that the statement about hawala transactions pertains to her personally is, therefore, based on a deduction rather than on the language of the advertisement itself. The specific wording--"NBA is run successfully through hawala transactions"--clearly attributes the conduct to the organization. The accused nowhere stated, implied, or suggested that the complainant was engaged in any such transaction. The reference to attached documents (letters and receipts) further reinforces that the criticism was at an institutional level.
34. In light of the above, when the advertisement is read in its entirety and in proper context, it cannot be said that any defamatory imputation was made against the complainant. The publication contains criticisms or accusations against NBA and certain other named persons, but not against the complainant personally. Her name Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:19:12 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.27 of 35 in the heading does not transform collective criticism of NBA into her personal defamation. The record i.e advertisement, therefore, does not support the allegation that the accused imputed any such act which the complainant has alleged in her complaint and evidence.
35. That being said, it now becomes important to consider whether the complainant can be said to be an "aggrieved person" competent to institute the present complaint within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision is an exception to the general rule that any person can set the criminal law in motion. In matters of defamation, the law restricts that right only to the person who is personally aggrieved by the alleged imputation. The requirement is mandatory and goes to the very root of jurisdiction.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan & Ors. v. T.V. Chokkappa 1972 AIR 26091 had laid down that where the publication complained of, neither 1 ... "On these contentions, the principal question for determination is whether the respondent could be said to be an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the complaint within the meaning of s. 198 of the Code. That section lays down that no magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence falling inter alia under Ch. XXI of the Penal Code (that is, ss. 499 to 502) except upon a complaint made by some persons aggrieved of such offence. Sec. 198, thus, lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint 'can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory, so that if a magistrate were to take cognizance of the, offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the ;trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the magistrate would be void and illegal. Prima facie, therefore, if s. 193 of the Code were to be noticed by itself, the complaint in the present case would be unsustainable, since the news item in question did not mention the respondent nor did it contain any defamatory imputation against him RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA 15:19:27 +0530 Date: 2026.01.29 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.28 of 35 names nor contains any defamatory imputation directed against the complainant personally, he/she cannot invoke Section 198 CrPC. The Court further observed that while Explanation (2) to Section 499 IPC extends the concept of defamation to a company or an association or collection of persons, the said collection must be a defined and identifiable body. The decisive test is whether the group is so specific and determinate that each of its members can be said to have been clearly referred to by the alleged imputation. If the class or group is indeterminate, undefined, or fluctuating in its composition, no individual can claim to be defamed merely because he happens to be connected with it.
37. Applying these legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the impugned advertisement makes imputations against Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) as an organization or movement. The statements are directed towards NBA as an entity and to certain individuals expressly named therein such as Ms. Chitraroopa individually. Sec. 499 of the Penal Code, which defines defamation, laid down that whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read or by signs etc. makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that the imputation will harm he reputation of such person, is said to defame that person. This part of the section makes defamation in respect of an individual an offence. But Explanation (2) to the section lays down the rifle that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. A defamatory imputation against a collection of persons thus falls within the definition of defamation. The language of the Explanation is wide, and therefore, besides a company or an association, any collection of persons would be covered by it But such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed Therefore, in a case where Explanation (2) is re sorted to, the identity of the company or the association or the collection of persons must be established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or imputations". Digitally signed by
RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:19:36 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.29 of 35 Palit and Ms. Arundhati Roy. The complainant's name appears only in the heading and finds no mention in the body of the advertisement where the imputations are articulated. The allegations--that confidential documents were shared abroad, that the body operated through hawala transactions, or that it deliberately avoided registration--are all framed at the organizational level.
38. Noticeably, NBA is not a registered association, company, or incorporated body. It is, by its very nature, a loose and voluntary movement--an andolan or agitation--without any formal membership, registered, or defined structure. It cannot be said with certainty who constitutes "NBA" at any point in time. The term represents a cause or a collective activity, not a juridical entity or a fixed group of persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan (supra) squarely addressed this kind of situation, holding that where a group is so indeterminate that its composition cannot be identified, no individual member can claim to be defamed on its behalf or in consequence of statements directed against that group. For an individual to maintain such a complaint, the imputation must be relatable to a definite body whose members are ascertainable--which aspect is altogether missing here.
39. Even assuming that the complainant is a founder or a leading figure associated with NBA, that fact alone cannot confer locus to allege defamation. The law does not recognize a right of action merely by virtue of leadership or associationDigitally with aby RAGHAV RAGHAVsigned SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:19:47 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.30 of 35 collective that is amorphous and undefined. Defamation, being a personal offence, must relate to an identifiable person or a definite group. NBA, in its present form, being only a movement without legal or structural identity, cannot attract Explanation (2) to Section 499 IPC. Consequently, even its founders or prominent supporters cannot claim personal defamation on that ground. In view thereof, complainant can not be treated as an "aggrieved person" within section 198 Cr.PC.
40. Now, the testimony of witness CW4 Dr. Anoop Saraya remains to be appreciated. This witness deposed in his evidence that impugned advertisement mention two things, (1) That NBA led by Medha Patkar was passing secret documents related to project of National Importance to foreign agency and (2) That NBA was receiving funds through hawala transactions. This witness reiterated these two inferences in his crossexamination as being stated in the advertisement. CW4 in his crossexamination stated that due to these activities of NBA, prestige of Ms. Medha Patkar had eroded to some extent in his eye. What needs to be seen is that this witness nowhere testified that advertisement imputed any of the above noted actions directly to the complainant herself. The specific statements of CW4, as noted above, that NBA was passing secret documents and that it was receiving money through hawala, show that even he did not read that imputations were made personally against the complainant. The testimony of this witness aligns with the observation of this court in preceding paragraph that criticism by the accused was Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:19:56 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.31 of 35 targeted towards NBA as an organization and not against the complainant personally.
41. The testimony of CW4 shows that the prestige of the complainant had suffered in his eyes not because the complainant was personally accused of wrongdoings, but because she was associated with NBA who was alleged to have engaged in above mentioned activities. Section 499 IPC requires that imputations must have been published concerning "any person". Here CW4's evidence confirms no direct imputation concerning the complainant. Merely because the complainant was the founder/leader of NBA and therefore, her prestige suffered in the eye of witness due to NBA's alleged activities, it can not be said that any imputation was made concerning her. The loss of reputation, if any, indirectly suffered by the complainant, due to criticism of NBA as an organization/movement, can not convert the same into personal defamation against her.
42. A significant aspect which is left to be addressed in the testimony of CW4 is the fact whether he had contacted the complainant or not after he had seen the advertisement. This aspect is important as the complainant in her complaint and examination in chief made categorical statement that she was contacted by CW4 who had raised questions and informed her about the advertisement. CW4 in his testimony categorically denied having made any such contact with the complainant at all. He specifically stated that he only approached Mr. Prashant BhushanDigitally for RAGHAV RAGHAVsigned by SHARMA SHARMA 15:20:04 +0530 Date: 2026.01.29 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.32 of 35 clarification. This contradiction goes to the root of the matter and seriously impairs the veracity of complainant's statement. The repeated denial by CW4 in his evidence that he did not contact complainant leaves no doubt that the complainant's version of being contacted by him is false. This contradiction show that the complainant had set up a false case of personal contact and confrontation only to bolster her claim of personal defamation.
CONCLUSION
43. The accused never disputed having published the impugned advertisement in the newspaper namely Indian Express dated 10.11.2000 titled "True face of Ms. Medha Patkar and her Narmada Bachao Andolan". Rather, he admitted the same during crossexamination of complainant by placing the reliance on the same. Therefore, fact in issue no. 1 stands proved.
44. The complainant has failed to establish that the accused published any imputation concerning the complainant personally in the said advertisement with an intent to harm or with the knowledge that it would harm her reputation. The advertisement, when read as a whole, contains criticism directed against NBA as an organization and specific individuals named therein like Ms. Chitrupa Palit. The complainant's name appear only in the heading and there is no reference to her in the body where substantive allegations are made. The allegations of passing confidential Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:20:13 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.33 of 35 documents to foreign persons, non registration of NBA to avoid disclosure of accounts, and receipt of funds through hawala all are explicitly made against NBA. By naming Ms. Chitrupa Palit as an author and by annexing her letter itself in the advertisement, the accused clearly disassociated the complainant from such authorship.
45. The complainant's own case suffers from irreconcilable contradictions. In the complaint, she admitted existence and authorship of Ms. Chitrupa Palit's letter, justified the document as NBA's on "risk analysis" disclosure of which did not harm national interest - thereby showing full knowledge thereof. However, in cross examination she pleaded complete ignorance: never seen any risk analyses, can not say if the same was prepared by NBA, had no discussion with Chitrupa Palit, had not even read the letter till publication. This gross inconsistency in the stand of complainant renders the credibility of her testimony diminished. Further, while the complainant stated in her complaint and evidence that she was contacted and asked questions by CW4, pursuant to advertisement; CW4 categorically denied the same stating that he never contacted her. This is also a major contradiction which falsifies the complainant's claim of being confronted by persons, due to advertisement, and her grievance of having suffered loss in reputation/prestige. In view of above, fact in issue no. 2 remains not proved. Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:20:25 +0530 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.34 of 35 JUDGMENT
46. It is hereby held that complainant has failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Accused V. K. Saxena is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.
Digitally signed by
RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29
15:20:32 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (RAGHAV SHARMA)
ON 29.01.2026 JMFC06/SE/SAKET/ NEW DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 35 pages and each page Digitally signed by bears my signatures. RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.29 15:20:39 +0530 [RAGHAV SHARMA] JMFC06,SED,NEW DELHI 29.01.2026 CT CASE NO.633718/2016 MEDHA PATKAR VS. V K SAXENA Page No.35 of 35