The Delhi Court issued non-bailable warrants against Medha Patkar for deliberately failing to comply with the sentencing order in a criminal appeal. The Court observed that the convict was avoiding both appearance and the terms of her sentence, noting that such conduct amounts to deliberate defiance of judicial directions.
The matter stems from a defamation case that originated over two decades ago. The dispute began when V.K. Saxena, then serving as the President of the National Council of Civil Liberties, published an advertisement critical of the Narmada Bachao Andolan led by Medha Patkar. In response, Patkar issued a press statement targeting Saxena. Following this, Saxena initiated defamation proceedings against her in 2001 before a court in Ahmedabad. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in 2003.
In the course of the proceedings, the trial court found Patkar guilty of defamation, noting that her statements suggested Saxena was involved in compromising the interests of Gujarat's people by aligning with international figures such as Bill Gates and James Wolfensohn. The court concluded that her statements were deliberate and calculated to harm Saxena’s reputation, portraying him as someone engaged in unethical financial activities. The language used by Patkar was held to be provocative and designed to incite public condemnation and diminish his social standing.
In this case, Medha Patkar had been directed by the trial court to comply with an order on sentence, which included the condition of availing the benefit of probation upon payment of compensation. However, instead of appearing before the Court or complying with its directions, she remained absent on the scheduled date. The Court took serious note of this repeated non-compliance, particularly as no suspension of sentence had been granted in her favour.
An application was moved on behalf of Medha Patkar seeking adjournment of the proceedings, citing the pendency of a criminal revision petition before the High Court. However, the trial court pointed out that there was no order from the High Court exempting her from complying with the sentence dated 08.04.2025.
Counsel for the convict argued that the pending revision before the High Court justified the adjournment. Nonetheless, the Court held that the application lacked merit and amounted to a misuse of judicial process.
While rejecting the application, the Court sternly observed, “The intention of convict Medha Patkar is apparent that she is deliberately violating the Court order; she is avoiding to appear before the Court and also avoiding to accept the terms of sentence passed against her. There is no order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court on 08/04/2025.”
Further, in reference to the request for adjournment, the Court stated, “The application has no substance; there is no direction in order dated 22/04/2025 of Hon’ble High Court that convict Medha Patkar is not required to comply with order on sentence dated 08/04/2025 passed by this Court. The present application is frivolous and mischievous and is only calculated to hoodwink the Court.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application and directed the issuance of non-bailable warrants through the office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The matter has been listed for report and further proceedings. The Court also cautioned that in the event of further non-compliance, it may be compelled to revisit and alter the sentence.
Picture Source :
